"Tyranny of the majority"

[SoupIsGoodFood]

If an anarchist society is run strictly by direct democracy, what is to stop people from voting away their freedoms and the freedoms of others? At this point if you put gay marriage up to a popular vote it would be voted down, like it was in California. And segregation in the South would have taken a lot longer to end if i was put to a vote. So whats to stop this?

[Misanthrope]

There is a huge difference between forced democracy and voluntary democracy. Forced democracy is the state, voluntary democracy is anarchism. I don't see why anyone would want to voluntarily join a commune or collective in hopes that their freedoms are taken away. If there is a commune and freedoms are restricted, obviously many would leave. Hope that helps a bit..

[SoupIsGoodFood]

But couldn't a commune vote away the freedoms of the minorities? Like if you wanted to participate in the community you had to be a certain racer or something.

[Misanthrope]

But couldn't a commune vote away the freedoms of the minorities? Like if you wanted to participate in the community you had to be a certain racer or something.

Most certainly, but no one would be forced to participate in said commune. If they were forced, it would be a state, not anarchism. I'm sure in anarchist society there will be a few white crazies that will form a white only commune.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Ok, cool.

[Misanthrope]

Ok, cool.

but you're completely right, statist democracy is tyranny of the majority.

[Manifesto]

And whats with the Anarchist thing? Marxists want no State, Communism it just won't be as quickly so it should count for them too. Or are you just talking about no State, Anarchy?

[communard resolution]

Most certainly, but no one would be forced to participate in said commune.

To be honest, this sounds very 'love it or leave it', and that's one of the problems I have with anarchism. Wouldn't it be preferable to ensure that people can live wherever they want, without some bigoted commune imposing their values and preferences upon them?


If they were forced, it would be a state, not anarchism. I'm sure in anarchist society there will be a few white crazies that will form a white only commune.So in a sense, racial separatist groups such as the National Anarchists are perfectly legitimate? They want to associate with whites only, and according to the anarchist idea of freedom of association there is no reason why they shouldn't.

[Ovi]

If an anarchist society is run strictly by direct democracy, what is to stop people from voting away their freedoms and the freedoms of others?At this point if you put gay marriage up to a popular vote it would be voted down, like it was in California. And segregation in the South would have taken a lot longer to end if i was put to a vote. So whats to stop this?
As the old anarchist saying "your rights end when another's begin", as long as gay marriage doesn't directly affect you, which does not, you can't forbid others to do it. Otherwise it's no longer anarchy.

To be honest, this sounds very 'love it or leave it', and that's one of the problems I have with anarchism. Wouldn't it be preferable to ensure that people can live wherever they want, without some bigoted commune imposing their values and preferences upon them?

No anarchist commune can impose anything on you. As I said before any commune that would do that can not be called anarchist. Any action that could affect you should be taken only with your agreement.


So in a sense, racial separatist groups such as the National Anarchists are perfectly legitimate? They want to associate with whites only, and according to the anarchist idea of freedom of association there is no reason why they shouldn't.
No they are not. While freedom of association is an anarchist principle, racism is not.

[communard resolution]

No anarchist commune can impose anything on you. As I said before any commune that would do that can not be called anarchist. Any action that could affect you should be taken only with your agreement.

Well, but if a commune democratically agrees that they do not wish to associate with non-whites, the only choice for non-whites and people who disagree with racism would be to leave. As Wolves of Paris stated earlier:


If there is a commune and freedoms are restricted, obviously many would leave.So it's 'love it or leave it'. This implies that not everybody can live wherever they wish - they would have to travel until they find a commune and location where they are accepted and whose arrangements they agree with.


No they are not. While freedom of association is an anarchist principle, racism is not.I'm aware that racism is not an anarchist principle - but if freedom of association is one, then the latter principle inevitably includes the right of certain communes not to associate with other ethnicities. What's there to prevent them from choosing to do so? After all, no association can be imposed on anyone.

As Wolves of Paris mentioned earlier,


I'm sure in anarchist society there will be a few white crazies that will form a white only commune. This is what National Anarchists aim to do, and within the framework of 'freedom of association' there is absolutely nothing to keep them from doing so, is there? Therefore, from an anarchist point of view, their project is perfectly legitimate.

I can see how racism is not one of your principles, however some communes might decide that it is one of theirs.

I believe this little dilemma is the reason why leftist anarchists are keen to point out that National Anarchists are really closet 'fascists'. Trouble is, they might not be 'fascists' at all - just racists who decided that the freedom of association principle of anarchism suits them very well to achieve their project of ethnic separatism.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

MOk first of if you dont have majority rule you have minority rule and this applies for mentally distrubed ancaps too,. Next off federations would be quite importent in terms of sercuring living standards as one commune wont be able to produce the goods alone able to bring it as high as a commune which uses recources from all over the world. Building a federation with a constitution that bans racial discrimination would be a serious deterent to loonies. Other communes would probably have nothing to do with the whites only commune and if they feel sick enough by whats happening may decide to beat this shit out of it.

[Ovi]

Well, but if a commune democratically agrees that they do not wish to associate with non-whites, the only choice for non-whites as well as people who disagree with racism would be to leave. As Wolves of Paris stated earlier:

There is no democracy=tyranny of the majority in an anarchist community. Such a decision can only be taken by consensus which would obviously fail. The only thing left would be segregation of those with different beliefs from the others.

The whole idea of anarchy is that people can live in peace with each other. That's how everything works, that's how decisions are made, how the work is organized...This question of racism is no different from any other.


So it's 'love it or leave it'. This implies that not everybody can live wherever they wish - they would have to travel until they find a commune and location where they are accepted and whose arrangements they agree with.

Those who live in a community have the right to say whether someone is accepted or not, otherwise it would cause conflicts inside the community. But of course, as long as that is an anarchist community, nobody will reject you because of some narrow-minded ideas.


I'm aware that racism is not an anarchist principle - but if freedom of association is one, then the latter principle inevitably includes the right of certain communes not to associate with other ethnicities. What's there to prevent them from choosing to do so? After all, no association can be imposed on anyone.

No one can prevent that. As long as most communities hold on their anarchist principles, I don't think that would bother me too much.


As Wolves of Paris mentioned earlier,

This is what National Anarchists aim to do, and within the framework of 'freedom of association' there is absolutely nothing to keep them from doing so, is there? Therefore, from an anarchist point of view, their project is perfectly legitimate.

I can see how racism is not one of your principles, however some communes might decide that it is one of theirs.
Yes, it is perfectly legitimate. If they want to live in racist community it's fine for them to do so, but we can longer call it anarchist and so it has nothing to do with us.

[communard resolution]

There is no democracy=tyranny of the majority in an anarchist community. Such a decision can only be taken by consensus which would obviously fail.

I wasn't aware that consensus was the guiding principle of decision-making in anarchism (I imagine that's a serious obstacle when it comes to organising since it's rather difficult to achieve a consensus about many things?).

Anyhow, National Anarchists have already achieved the consensus that they don't wish to associate with non-whites. Therefore, they could legitimately oust non-white people from their communes, and at the same time from the geographical locations where their communes are based.


The whole idea of anarchy is that people can live in peace with each other. That is what National Anarchists want to as well - and in order to achieve this, they want to form their own, ethnically homogenous communes, based on the right to free association. Expansionism is not part of their programme - they desire peaceful coexistence with other communes whom they grant the right to be ethnically heterogenous.


Those who live in a community have the right to say whether someone is accepted or not, otherwise it would cause conflicts inside the community. But of course, as long as that is an anarchist community, nobody will reject you because of some narrow-minded ideas.Unless it's a National Anarchist community, of course, who will reject non-whites in order to "avoid conflicts".


No one can prevent that. As long as most communities hold on their anarchist principles, I don't think that would bother me too much.I believe anti-racism was integrated into anarchist ideology later on rather than being one of its original principles. It's an add-on. National Anarchists will claim that they are legitimate anarchists as well as you are because they agree with decentralisation, federalism, the right to free association, etc. They may even point to the racism of figures such as Bakunin and Proudhon to prove that anti-racism is not a requirement for anarchists.


Yes, it is perfectly legitimate. If they want to live in racist community it's fine for them to do soThanks, this is basically all I wanted to know. I think this is the reason why some racists have turned towards anarchism now - because it would give them an opportunity to make their dreams of ethnically pure communities come true.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a world of separate communities, some of which are isolated and may even be racially separatist (or other undesirable things). So while most people will say "anarchism - good idea, but wouldn't work", I'd be tempted to state the opposite: "might work, but not necessarily a good idea".

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Most certainly, but no one would be forced to participate in said commune. If they were forced, it would be a state, not anarchism. I'm sure in anarchist society there will be a few white crazies that will form a white only commune.

This is the kind of thing that bugs me about some anarchists and the anarchist FAQ...basing your philosophy on assumptions that "in anarchy, no one will force anyone to do anything." "In anarchy, no one will ever want to oppress anyone." etc


No anarchist commune can impose anything on you. As I said before any commune that would do that can not be called anarchist. Any action that could affect you should be taken only with your agreement.This is idealist crap.

It doesn't matter what it's called. If it can result from the type of society you envision then I'd hope you'd try to address it properly. This is similar to the shit we hear from libertarians when they say that the capitalism of today isn't "real capitalism" while ignoring that it resulted from "real capitalism."

And as far as "love it or leave" it...that means communes can deny 49% access to communal property? So we can have sectional ownership now? If only we had an example of an economic system characterized by sectional ownership to study and see what it results in...

I don't think people are going to put their safety at risk based on assumptions that people will naturally "live in peace."

[Ovi]

I wasn't aware that consensus was the guiding principle of decision-making in anarchism (I imagine that's a serious obstacle when it comes to organising since it's rather difficult to achieve a consensus about many things?).

If you can't achieve a consensus on something that could affect everyone, then it may not be worth doing it.


Anyhow, National Anarchists have already achieved the consensus that they don't wish to associate with non-whites. Therefore, they could legitimately oust non-white people from their communes, and at the same from the geographical locations where their communes are based.

They can reject them, but how can a consensus expel them?


That is what National Anarchists want to as well - and in order to achieve this, they want to form their own, ethnically homogenous communes, based on the right to free association. Expansionism is not part of their programme - they desire peaceful coexistence with other communes whom they grant the right to be ethnically heterogenous.

Unless it's a National Anarchist community, of course, who will reject non-whites in order to "avoid conflicts".

Again, how does that bother me? There are assholes in this world now and there will be at anytime in the future. You can't really ban being an asshole. It's better for all of us if they all live in the same communities, as a community of assholes :laugh:


I believe anti-racism was integrated into anarchist ideology later on rather than being one of its original principles. It's an add-on. National Anarchists will claim that they are legitimate anarchists as well as you are because they agree with decentralisation, federalism, the right to free association, etc. They may even point to the racism of figures such as Bakunin and Proudhon to prove that anti-racism is not a requirement for anarchists.

Thanks, this is basically all I wanted to know.
Anarchism means that we are all equal, there are no rulers and no 'superior' people. They can believe whatever they want. Some people believe Stalin was a communist, but that doesn't make him one.
Edit:


Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a world of separate communities, some of which are isolated and may even be racially separatist (or other undesirable things).
You already do. Welcome to capitalism!

[communard resolution]

Again, how does that bother me? There are assholes in this world now and there will be at anytime in the future. You can't really ban being an asshole. It's better for all of us if they all live in the same communities, as a community of assholesSo what we're looking at with anarchism is a sort of assholes/non-assholes apartheid? Fair enough. But given how many 'assholes' there currently are in the world, they would require quite vast territories to set up their asshole communities. What's the plan? America for assholes, Europe for non-assholes? Or the other way round?


Anarchism means that we are all equal, there are no rulers and no 'superior' people. National anarchists don't believe in rulers or hierarchies. Many of them don't even believe they are 'racially superior'. Their belief is that different races don't mix well, and therefore they wish to set up their own, ethnically pure communities.

You grant them this right, and therefore you grant them their own territories - I think they could live with that. Without being moralistic or sarcastic about it, I don't see a reason why National Anarchists and other Anarchists shouldn't work together in the here and now. They could arrive at a compromise.


Some people believe Stalin was a communist, but that doesn't make him one.He was an excellent revolutionary in the years building up to the revolution, but not later on. That's just my opinion anyway, but let's not discuss Stalin here.

[communard resolution]

You already do. Welcome to capitalism!

Exactly - and I don't wish to work towards a society that will continue these things.

[Ovi]

Exactly - and I don't wish to work towards a society that will continue these things.
Whether this will continue or not we will see. But by not doing anything you already work towards such a society, which is still capitalism. What matters is that anarchism does not promote racism or any form of discrimination, so it can't be any worse than it is today.

[communard resolution]

so it can't be any worse than it is today.

That's not too grand a vision, is it? :lol: But ok.

[Misanthrope]

To be honest, this sounds very 'love it or leave it', and that's one of the problems I have with anarchism. Wouldn't it be preferable to ensure that people can live wherever they want, without some bigoted commune imposing their values and preferences upon them?

So in a sense, racial separatist groups such as the National Anarchists are perfectly legitimate? They want to associate with whites only, and according to the anarchist idea of freedom of association there is no reason why they shouldn't.

Okay, well in a revolutionary period what if many oppose the state? From what I have gathered from here, state socialists would consider them reactionary and would kill them. I have a problem with that, it is statism, it is coercion, it is force. It is everything communist theory opposes.

What you fail to realize is that not everyone has to be governed. Individuals would seek to communes for benefits that only a collective could properly provide, i.e military, police, roads, schools, ect. I don't see why anyone would join a commune in hopes that the commune tells them what drugs they can and cannot take, for example. If a commune forces its will upon you, it is a state.

The problem with National Anarchists is that they see their system as the best in comparison to all other ideologies. It is racist in nature, that is why I oppose it as a theory. Once the state is eliminated I don't see how you can justifiably tell people who they can and cannot associate with. Is your communistic dream world authoritarian to ideologies you disagree with but libertarian to those you agree with? The thing about reality is, people will most likely associate with those they have things in common with. My grandpa, a WWII veteran says in training your best friends become the kids that come from the same background as you, it is just bound to happen. What's more, I'm not sure if the National "anarchists" are capitalist or not? If they are capitalist then in theory, the firms in that nationalist commune would pay lower wages and have horrible working conditions and therefore the workers would go to a democratically controlled firm to experience all the benefits of autogestion, that we don't need to go into.

What if homosexuals wished to form their own commune?


And whats with the Anarchist thing? Marxists want no State, Communism it just won't be as quickly so it should count for them too. Or are you just talking about no State, Anarchy?

Anarchism and communism in the end are the same thing but both differ on the methods in which they want to bring about statelessness and classlessness.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Okay, well in a revolutionary period what if many oppose the state? From what I have gathered from here, state socialists would consider them reactionary and would kill them. I have a problem with that, it is statism, it is coercion, it is force. It is everything communist theory opposes.

Okay, well in a revolutionary period what if the capitalists and their armies fight back? From what I have gathered, anarchists would consider them reactionary and would kill them. I have a problem with that, it is statism, it is coercion, it is force. It is everything communist theory opposes.


What you fail to realize is that not everyone has to be governed. Individuals would seek to communes for benefits that only a collective could properly provide, i.e military, police, roads, schools, ect. I don't see why anyone would join a commune in hopes that the commune tells them what drugs they can and cannot take, for example.It's not like we aren't inheriting a previously existing society. Communities will already exist. If the majority in a community agree to outlaw drugs, then maybe no one will join. That doesn't change the fact that they are already a thousand, ten thousand, or a hundred thousand people that already live there and most likely don't want to or may not even have the capability to leave.


If a commune forces its will upon you, it is a state. This is nothing but a cop out..you're just avoiding the issue. It's like if I said "people don't kill people, because when someone kills someone they've become a murderer and ceased to be a person." If anarchist communes cease to be anarchist simply by forcing their will on someone, such as say...killing a rapist, then I don't see your anarchism ever existing, seeing that I've seen quite a few anarchist advocate that sort of thing.


The problem with National Anarchists is that they see their system as the best in comparison to all other ideologies. It is racist in nature, that is why I oppose it as a theory. Once the state is eliminated I don't see how you can justifiably tell people who they can and cannot associate with.But they don't want to do that. They want whites or blacks only communes. In an area predominantly white, perhaps they plan on removing the 10% that isn't by force. Maybe they'll just force them out by denying them access to vital resources. They aren't telling people who they can associate with, they simply won't associate with people of different races.


Is your communistic dream world authoritarian to ideologies you disagree with but libertarian to those you agree with?Did he say that? I think it's safe to say that he does not want to leave things up to chance and assumptions, and would rather have a guarantee that certain people will not be barred access to resources because of their race, or won't be killed because they're gay, or...


The thing about reality is, people will most likely associate with those they have things in common with. The thing about reality is, you are not starting with a blank slate where humans are unorganized and equally distributed across the planet. We're inheriting large population centers that are perhaps made of people with wildly different viewpoints. Perhaps your ideas are more applicable to other areas...but America is very diverse.


What if homosexuals wished to form their own commune?What benefit is forming a commune if the commune has no resources? What if no commune will give them access to resources? But that means there is a large group without access to the means of production and a large group with access to the means of production. They might be free from coercion in the sense that cappies use the word, but what about economic coercion? If only we knew what that lead to...

[Misanthrope]

Okay, well in a revolutionary period what if the capitalists and their armies fight back? From what I have gathered, anarchists would consider them reactionary and would kill them. I have a problem with that, it is statism, it is coercion, it is force. It is everything communist theory opposes.

I believe everyone has the right to self defense against forceful attack. Your point?

It is not statism, how is self defense a group of people obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographical area through fraud/force? Self defense is a legitimate claim for force. I don't see how communist theory opposes revolution either..


It's not like we aren't inheriting a previously existing society. Communities will already exist. If the majority in a community agree to outlaw drugs, then maybe no one will join. That doesn't change the fact that they are already a thousand, ten thousand, or a hundred thousand people that already live there and most likely don't want to or may not even have the capability to leave.

If a governing commune is present in a given area, there may be those in that area that choose not to be governed or choose to be governed by another commune. You're right there will be communities that exist but a community doesn't equate to a state. There will be communities but there will not be states, if there were states it would not be communism. What separates a state from a commune is that one is voluntary i.e. if you don't want to be governed at all you don't have to be. If a commune declares a monopoly on the legitimate use of force that obtained power of declaration through force or fraud, it is a state. I fail to see why you insist on thinking I advocate a state, when I oppose it. Please clarify.



This is nothing but a cop out..you're just avoiding the issue. It's like if I said "people don't kill people, because when someone kills someone they've become a murderer and ceased to be a person." If anarchist communes cease to be anarchist simply by forcing their will on someone, such as say...killing a rapist, then I don't see your anarchism ever existing, seeing that I've seen quite a few anarchist advocate that sort of thing.

So you don't see the process of voluntary direct democracy legitimate? If a crime is committed against an individual which is protected by a government, that government consitutes of voluntary association in a given geographical area has, I believe, legitimacy in punishing the criminal. If you don't see how punishing criminals by a democratic process is legitimate then I guess it isn't anarchism in your eyes.



But they don't want to do that. They want whites or blacks only communes. In an area predominantly white, perhaps they plan on removing the 10% that isn't by force. Maybe they'll just force them out by denying them access to vital resources. They aren't telling people who they can associate with, they simply won't associate with people of different races.

Vital resources which are commonly owned? I see this as plausible but I don't see national anarchism as a great threat to solidarity and communist principles. In order for them to fully succeed there would have to a lot of white national anarchists who had access to vital resources. I don't see why there would be a large national anarchist movement when a workers revolution wouldn't be able to succeed if it was whites only. What would there slogan be? "Freedom, equality, common ownership of the workplace, democracy, higher wages, better working conditions... for whites only"




Did he say that? I think it's safe to say that he does not want to leave things up to chance and assumptions, and would rather have a guarantee that certain people will not be barred access to resources because of their race, or won't be killed because they're gay, or...

No he didn't say that, sorry if I implied that. Like I said, I fail to see why there would be an all controlling national anarchist commune that had strict control of resources. If you could back up your "what if" situation with some events that would lead up to such a commune, I would appreciate it.


The thing about reality is, you are not starting with a blank slate where humans are unorganized and equally distributed across the planet. We're inheriting large population centers that are perhaps made of people with wildly different viewpoints. Perhaps your ideas are more applicable to other areas...but America is very diverse.

organization does not equal state. No rational revolution advocates starting off with a blank slate, if the state ceased to exist tomorrow we would not be ready to have communism.

Exactly, widely different view points, that is why I fail to see how a state can represent all of those view points in a revolutionary period.


What benefit is forming a commune if the commune has no resources? What if no commune will give them access to resources? But that means there is a large group without access to the means of production and a large group with access to the means of production. They might be free from coercion in the sense that cappies use the word, but what about economic coercion? If only we knew what that lead to...

Natural resources? Well a commune can be formed for military or police protection. If that commune won't give access to "them" :rolleyes: then I'm sure "them" would take action. The owners of the means of production, be it capitalists or workers need other workers. Obviously there would be democratically managed firms, I fail to see how a firm and commune that turns so many workers away, could compete.

[Misanthrope]

This is the kind of thing that bugs me about some anarchists and the anarchist FAQ...basing your philosophy on assumptions that "in anarchy, no one will force anyone to do anything." "In anarchy, no one will ever want to oppress anyone." etc

This is idealist crap.

This is the kind of thing that bugs me about you, you always start your responses exactly how I start mine.

I'm sure there will be skirmishes and wars in anarchy.



It doesn't matter what it's called. If it can result from the type of society you envision then I'd hope you'd try to address it properly. This is similar to the shit we hear from libertarians when they say that the capitalism of today isn't "real capitalism" while ignoring that it resulted from "real capitalism."

If a commune were to impose their will upon others then it would be a state. It would not be anarchist and I guess anarchism would be a failure. What if the worker's state in a revolutionary period turned out to be crab people and they seized the means of production and exploited the workers for ever!

Stop with the "what if" bullshit, please.




And as far as "love it or leave" it...that means communes can deny 49% access to communal property? So we can have sectional ownership now? If only we had an example of an economic system characterized by sectional ownership to study and see what it results in...

The terms of government and governed will most likely be arranged when the agreement is made. If the government violates the agreement, I don't think the majority of the governed would take too kindly. I fail to see why workers who just fought a workers revolution would settle for fiscal exploitation.



I don't think people are going to put their safety at risk based on assumptions that people will naturally "live in peace."

:rolleyes: If that was the case there wouldn't be a need for communes would they?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I believe everyone has the right to self defense against forceful attack. Your point?

It is not statism, how is self defense a group of people obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographical area through fraud/force? Self defense is a legitimate claim for force. I don't see how communist theory opposes revolution either..

Seriously? It was in response to your comment:


Okay, well in a revolutionary period what if many oppose the state? From what I have gathered from here, state socialists would consider them reactionary and would kill them. I have a problem with that, it is statism, it is coercion, it is force. It is everything communist theory opposes.So according to you it's statism and anti-communist for the organized workers to suppress the capitalist class? If someone opposes that, then they aren't a communist.


If a governing commune is present in a given area, there may be those in that area that choose not to be governed or choose to be governed by another commune.Again, "love it or leave it." You aren't bringing up anything new.


You're right there will be communities that exist but a community doesn't equate to a state. There will be communities but there will not be states, if there were states it would not be communism. What separates a state from a commune is that one is voluntary i.e. if you don't want to be governed at all you don't have to be. If a commune declares a monopoly on the legitimate use of force that obtained power of declaration through force or fraud, it is a state. I fail to see why you insist on thinking I advocate a state, when I oppose it. Please clarify.So...idealism. The only way it will work is if reality conforms to your little vision. If people simply do not recognize your anarchist principles, then it all falls to part and we have the return of states. What positively prevents the returns of states? The return of capitalism? Nothing. All you are saying is that if it turns into capitalism or a state then it's not anarchy anymore and therefor the anarchist system isn't the problem.


So you don't see the process of voluntary direct democracy legitimate? If a crime is committed against an individual which is protected by a government, that government consitutes of voluntary association in a given geographical area has, I believe, legitimacy in punishing the criminal. If you don't see how punishing criminals by a democratic process is legitimate then I guess it isn't anarchism in your eyes.I didn't say it wasn't legitimate, you did. You said people are autonomous and do not have to accept the decisions of the commune, and that "If a commune forces its will upon you, it is a state. " A commune killing someone is surely an example of it forcing it's will on someone. It's not anarchism by your own definitions. You're philosophy is entirely incoherent.


organization does not equal state. No rational revolution advocates starting off with a blank slate, if the state ceased to exist tomorrow we would not be ready to have communism.I don't think you understood anything I said...

You seem to think we're starting off with this blank slate where people will simply choose a place to live where everyone is similar and go there. Reality is different. We're inheriting large concentrations of people who are wildly different and where they can not simply move if they don't agree with decisions.


Exactly, widely different view points, that is why I fail to see how a state can represent all of those view points in a revolutionary period.You brought up the idea of people associating with people who are common in response to the issue of a commune not guaranteeing the rights of others. In reality we inherit already existing communities where people who may have nothing in common are forced to live together. Your solution to protecting them? "Love it or leave it." The "statist" solution? Inscribe their rights in law.

We weren't talking about a revolutionary period.


Natural resources? Oh, so they're just going to go and live off "natural resources"? Sounds like the libertarian argument that if workers don't want to associate with capitalist they can "simply" live off the land.


Well a commune can be formed for military or police protection. If that commune won't give access to "them" :rolleyes: then I'm sure "them" would take action.So if one commune is not sharing access to it's communally owned property, other communes can form armies and attack this commune? That sounds appealing.


The owners of the means of production, be it capitalists or workers need other workers.But they don't have to include those other workers as owners and allow them to participate in the administration of them. Mondragon, the famous workers collective, employs thousands of wage slaves. Only 25% of it's workers actually participate in controlling the collectives resources.


Obviously there would be democratically managed firms, I fail to see how a firm and commune that turns so many workers away, could compete.Because those workers have no choice but to work for this firm, unless they want to starve or live in poverty. And since now these communes are apparently competing, they're going to want these workers to also work cheaply...

So let's see..by your own definitions you have reintroduced states, capitalist competition, profit motive...

Fuck yeah anarchy.



Stop with the "what if" bullshit, please.If you can build your philosophy up on assumptions like "no one will force anyone to do anything"...essentially that everyone will be a perfect anarchist, I don't see how it is not equally legitimate to deconstruct it using assumptions that people will in fact not be perfect little anarchists. I don't see you gaining any support when you say "quit the bullshit" any time someone asks how their security will be guaranteed in anarchy.

[Nwoye]

I believe everyone has the right to self defense against forceful attack. Your point?

It is not statism, how is self defense a group of people obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographical area through fraud/force? Self defense is a legitimate claim for force. I don't see how communist theory opposes revolution either..
If a state is simply a monopoly on the use of force over a geographical area, than anyone claiming property (even personal) property is engaging in statist behavior. If I live on and farm on a small plot of land, that constitutes personal property, and is also totally legitimate right? Well when I'm using or occupying it, I am expressing my ability to use that land however I see fit - I can alter it, destroy it, mix my labor with it, consume it, give it away or sell it. Simultaneously, I'm not allowing anyone else to do the same. I mean if someone came onto my land and tried to steal the plants I was growing, I would tell them to gtfo. This is expression of ownership, and it is exactly the same has having a monopoly of force. I'm claiming that I and I alone can do anything I want with this specific piece of land.

According to an anarchist, anyone expressing their ownership of land, or defending it from outside invasion is somehow a state, since they're fulfilling the anarchist definition of a state (monopoly of force, etc). But it's clear that they aren't sovereign states, so what's the problem? It's this simplistic and arcane definition of a state. It just doesn't work.

[communard resolution]

And we haven't even begun to consider what may happen if the white pride commune breed a lot and decide they need more Lebensraum for their people.

My motto: workers of the world unite. The anarchist motto: workers of the world split into whatever number of communes you wish to set up. Not for me.

[Misanthrope]

So according to you it's statism and anti-communist for the organized workers to suppress the capitalist class? If someone opposes that, then they aren't a communist.

No. It is statism to force the workers to abide to the state's policies. "Organized workers" doesn't constitute statism. Organized worker governments are voluntary in nature, but once these workers start forcing their will upon other workers, I see that as illegitimate force and don't see that as just. Disregarding the fact that statism is an absolutely laughable tactic in obtaining a society where states are nonexistent and that a state in nature caters to upper class, revolutionary periods are still class societies.



Again, "love it or leave it." You aren't bringing up anything new.

When typical state nationalist use such an argument there are not taking into account that all states function primarily the same and not everyone has the funds or ability to leave a state but that differs greatly from not suscribing to a commune. You seem to be ignoring the fact that you do not have to be governed, you don't have to leave anywhere. You continually saying that I have similar arguments as statists is irrellevant. I am bringing up new points but you just continue to say "love it or leave it." Without adressing your problem with workers having the right to choose their government or lack thereof.



So...idealism. The only way it will work is if reality conforms to your little vision. If people simply do not recognize your anarchist principles, then it all falls to part and we have the return of states. What positively prevents the returns of states? The return of capitalism? Nothing. All you are saying is that if it turns into capitalism or a state then it's not anarchy anymore and therefor the anarchist system isn't the problem.

The only way your state socialism will work is if enough people abide to the state's policies and the state has enough power to control those that oppose the policies. You missed the part in my previous posts in which I said if these voluntary governments resorted to statism then in turn anarchism would be a failure. I fail to see why you judge a system based on absurd hypothetical situations that have no basis.

'What if the worker's state starts killing everyone because they become power hungry!?'

You're basically spouting arguments in that nature, you see these voluntary governments as inherently on the road to statism. You see the people running these governments wanting to force others to abide by them but you don't see the worker's state as a threat to statelessness as you see voluntary communes. Why?

After the worker's state is no longer needed, there will be no state, it will be communism. Won't people be free to organize into communes and the like? Your arguments are really against statelessness in general rather than anarchy as a philosophy.



I didn't say it wasn't legitimate, you did. You said people are autonomous and do not have to accept the decisions of the commune, and that "If a commune forces its will upon you, it is a state. " A commune killing someone is surely an example of it forcing it's will on someone. It's not anarchism by your own definitions. You're philosophy is entirely incoherent.

Legitimacy is an intersubjective consensus. A crime (another intersubjective consensus) against a commune or those in a commune will be seen as illegitmate force, crimes like rape. If you see rape as legitimate force, then punishment of that action would be seen as illegimate in your eyes. In turn you would see that commune as illegitimate and it wouldn't be anarchism in your eyes, but those who see the punishment of rape as legitimate, then in turn they wouldn't see it as a statist action. So unless your ideal society is a stateless, classless and where rape isn't punished, that is still anarchism by definition.



I don't think you understood anything I said...




You seem to think we're starting off with this blank slate where people will simply choose a place to live where everyone is similar and go there. Reality is different. We're inheriting large concentrations of people who are wildly different and where they can not simply move if they don't agree with decisions.

Define community. We are all apart of the human community but that doesn't mean everyone has the exact same interests. There will be organizations of people that have things in common, i.e. communities. That is what I have been saying! Fucking christ, "The thing about reality is, people will most likely associate with those they have things in common with" from the post directed at Nero and what you continually fail to recognize is that not every single individual has to be governed.



You brought up the idea of people associating with people who are common in response to the issue of a commune not guaranteeing the rights of others. In reality we inherit already existing communities where people who may have nothing in common are forced to live together. Your solution to protecting them? "Love it or leave it." The "statist" solution? Inscribe their rights in law.

Forced to live together on what conditions? If individuals don't want to be apart of the communes present in their area, they don't have to be and they don't have to move anywhere. So you're wrong, they don't have to "love it or leave it" your redundancy is rather annoying.. "love it or leave it" "love it or leave it!". What does that even mean? Actually form an argument instead of quoting state nationalists..




We weren't talking about a revolutionary period.




Oh, so they're just going to go and live off "natural resources"? Sounds like the libertarian argument that if workers don't want to associate with capitalist they can "simply" live off the land.

I was asking what you meant by resources.




But they don't have to include those other workers as owners and allow them to participate in the administration of them. Mondragon, the famous workers collective, employs thousands of wage slaves. Only 25% of it's workers actually participate in controlling the collectives resources.

Okay, so now you're spewing arguments against worker self management? In a communist society, what if workers don't allow other workers to be in management? Why does everything work out perfectly in your communism but not mine? Talk about idealism..




Because those workers have no choice but to work for this firm, unless they want to starve or live in poverty. And since now these communes are apparently competing, they're going to want these workers to also work cheaply...

So the firm has a monopoly on the area, that is a problem. Who is "they"? Why would the workers want the workers to work cheaply?




So let's see..by your own definitions you have reintroduced states, capitalist competition, profit motive...

:rolleyes:



Fuck yeah anarchy.





If you can build your philosophy up on assumptions like "no one will force anyone to do anything"...essentially that everyone will be a perfect anarchist, I don't see how it is not equally legitimate to deconstruct it using assumptions that people will in fact not be perfect little anarchists. I don't see you gaining any support when you say "quit the bullshit" any time someone asks how their security will be guaranteed in anarchy.

If you want to be protected in a stateless society, you will organize with others to ensure that protection.

How is protection guaranteed in a communist society? What is your proposition for government in a communist society, because you continue to ignore the fact that I say individuals don't have to be governed so you must see government as necessary. So let's hear it, what government will be in your communist society?


And we haven't even begun to consider what may happen if the white pride commune breed a lot and decide they need more Lebensraum for their people.

My motto: workers of the world unite. The anarchist motto: workers of the world split into whatever number of communes you wish to set up. Not for me.

How can every single worker in the worlds interests be represented by one government?

[Pogue]

And we haven't even begun to consider what may happen if the white pride commune breed a lot and decide they need more Lebensraum for their people.

My motto: workers of the world unite. The anarchist motto: workers of the world split into whatever number of communes you wish to set up. Not for me.

Thats bullshit and not what we advocate in the slightest. I expected better from you, seemingly one of the more balanced members of the board, than this sort of rubbish.

[communard resolution]

Thats bullshit and not what we advocate in the slightest. I expected better from you, seemingly one of the more balanced members of the board, than this sort of rubbish.

Thanks for the compliment. I've written several posts in this thread, you're welcome to rebut the points I've made.

I'm aware you don't advocate white power communes and war for Lebensraum. The point is that the anarchist model seems to leave room for such developments.

When I discussed this matter with an anarchist poster earlier, he/she stated that

1) white nationalists are free to form their own communes
2) there will always be assholes, and they will live separetely in their own territories
3) racism might persist but will not be "worse than it is now".

I concluded that this was not too amazing an outlook and that I couldn't see myself fighting for this type of society.

Where have I been wrong?

[Ovi]

Thanks for the compliment. I've written several posts in this thread, you're welcome to rebut the points I've made.

I'm aware you don't advocate white power communes and war for Lebensraum. The point is that the anarchist model seems to leave room for such developments.

When I discussed this matter with an anarchist poster earlier, he/she stated that

1) white nationalists are free to form their own communes
2) there will always be assholes, and they will live separetely in their own territories
3) racism might persist but will not be "worse than it is now".

I concluded that this was not too amazing an outlook and that I couldn't see myself fighting for this type of society.

Where have I been wrong?
First of all the "anarchist model" we were talking about was my oppinion on the subject. That doesn't mean every anarchist agrees with that, so generalizing it to everyone is silly.
Development? The only development I see it's either to force racists to live in the same communities as anarchists (which is stupid) or kill them all. What do you propose? What would you consider to be "amazing"?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

No. It is statism to force the workers to abide to the state's policies. "Organized workers" doesn't constitute statism. Organized worker governments are voluntary in nature, but once these workers start forcing their will upon other workers, I see that as illegitimate force and don't see that as just. Disregarding the fact that statism is an absolutely laughable tactic in obtaining a society where states are nonexistent and that a state in nature caters to upper class, revolutionary periods are still class societies.You said it's statist to kill someone. Your statement said nothing about class, you simply said "many." Even if they are workers, what does that change? Do you think every single worker is going to support revolution, or do you think it's more likely that many will wish to preserve the capitalist order? I do, and you calling me statist and anti-communist isn't going to make me think we should sit back while they "freely organize." If a state in nature caters to the ruling class, then when the workers become the dominant class, it means the state is used by workers. What is your opposition, then?


When typical state nationalist use such an argument there are not taking into account that all states function primarily the same and not everyone has the funds or ability to leave a state but that differs greatly from not suscribing to a commune. You seem to be ignoring the fact that you do not have to be governed, you don't have to leave anywhere. You continually saying that I have similar arguments as statists is irrellevant. I am bringing up new points but you just continue to say "love it or leave it." Without adressing your problem with workers having the right to choose their government or lack thereof. You don't have to be governed? According to what, your utopian theory? What prevents "governance"? Oh right, nothing...just the confidence that people will abide by anarchist principles. I never said you made similar arguments as statists, and I'm starting to wonder if you bother to actually read what you're responding to. I don't particularly care if a constitution is forced on workers. I see no problem with forcing all members of society to say, recognize everyones right to participate in managing the means of production, or recognizing everyones right to a minimum standard of living. Do you?


The only way your state socialism will work is if enough people abide to the state's policies and the state has enough power to control those that oppose the policies. You missed the part in my previous posts in which I said if these voluntary governments resorted to statism then in turn anarchism would be a failure. I fail to see why you judge a system based on absurd hypothetical situations that have no basis.No basis? You think all antagonisms will magically disappear with the creation of anarchism? It is your claims that in fact have no basis...all anarchists experiments have had to resort to actions you would call statist.


'What if the worker's state starts killing everyone because they become power hungry!?'But that's where your idea of anarchy fails. I have no problem "forcing" society to recognize peoples right to life and I doubt many other "state socialists" do either.


You're basically spouting arguments in that nature, you see these voluntary governments as inherently on the road to statism. Well seeing how loose your conditions for something to be a state are, this is correct


You see the people running these governments wanting to force others to abide by them but you don't see the worker's state as a threat to statelessness as you see voluntary communes. Why?I'm simply arguing on your own logic. Marxists and anarchists have far different interpretations of the state. I suggest you check out the thread "A point about Marx's theory of the state."


Legitimacy is an intersubjective consensus. A crime (another intersubjective consensus) against a commune or those in a commune will be seen as illegitmate force, crimes like rape. If you see rape as legitimate force, then punishment of that action would be seen as illegimate in your eyes. In turn you would see that commune as illegitimate and it wouldn't be anarchism in your eyes, but those who see the punishment of rape as legitimate, then in turn they wouldn't see it as a statist action. So unless your ideal society is a stateless, classless and where rape isn't punished, that is still anarchism by definition.Oh, so each commune subjectively determines what are illegitimate and legitimate actions for other people and can then choose the legitimate punishment for this? So in an area where it is considered perfectly acceptable to stone someone for using opium, that would be legitimate and therefore not "statist"? Sounds like moral relativism and not conductive to individual rights. You've pretty much made the term "legitimate" and "statist" and "anarchy" meaningless.


Define community. We are all apart of the human community but that doesn't mean everyone has the exact same interests. There will be organizations of people that have things in common, i.e. communities. So how will the resources of an already existing city be distributed if, after the revolution, there are 100 organizations all claiming to be communes and all wanting part of the resources? The same solution you offered earlier, war? Or will it be as the Bakuninists wanted...each town, village, city, etc becoming a commune, In which case the cities already exist, and people did not simply choose to live there with people they have things in common with.


That is what I have been saying! Fucking christ, "The thing about reality is, people will most likely associate with those they have things in common with" from the post directed at Nero and what you continually fail to recognize is that not every single individual has to be governed.Simply saying "not every single individual has to be governed" doesn't show how or why there will necessarily be no "governed." You're just repeating anarchist principles without saying why or how these principles will actually manifest themselves in reality.


Forced to live together on what conditions? If individuals don't want to be apart of the communes present in their area, they don't have to be and they don't have to move anywhere. So you're wrong, they don't have to "love it or leave it" your redundancy is rather annoying.. "love it or leave it" "love it or leave it!". What does that even mean? Actually form an argument instead of quoting state nationalists..This is about as dumb as if I said the working class can simply stop working for the capitalists without finding a new boss. If someone ceases participating in a commune, then do you think it will continue giving that person access to its resources? Probably not, and so they're forced to move to a different commune or stay and accept what the commune is doing. So yes, "love it or leave it."


I was asking what you meant by resources.Things like the means of production, the sectional ownership of which is the basis for capitalism. Your argument that people can simply leave a commune and form their own is similar to to libertarian argument that if the working class doesn't want to work for capitalists it can "simply" live off the land.


Okay, so now you're spewing arguments against worker self management? In a communist society, what if workers don't allow other workers to be in management? Why does everything work out perfectly in your communism but not mine? Talk about idealism..No, I'm arguing against wage labor. If you don't have a problem with wage labour then I'm not sure you belong here. I have a different conception of communism that doesn't involve chaotic, seperate communes. I'd hope that there will be laws and protections against 51% simply deciding that 49% can no longer participate in administering the means of production and must now be wage slaves, but those aren't the kinds of things you support.


So the firm has a monopoly on the area, that is a problem. Who is "they"? Why would the workers want the workers to work cheaply?You brought up the idea of competition...and it's pretty obvious that the firm that pays it's wage slaves the lowest is going to be the most successful.


If you want to be protected in a stateless society, you will organize with others to ensure that protection.

How is protection guaranteed in a communist society? What is your proposition for government in a communist society, because you continue to ignore the fact that I say individuals don't have to be governed so you must see government as necessary. So let's hear it, what government will be in your communist society?I'm sorry, but I find a constitution that ensures there aren't thousands of fragmented communes waging war on each other preferable than having to join some sort of militia to defend myself against warring communes.

[Misanthrope]

You said it's statist to kill someone. Your statement said nothing about class, you simply said "many." Even if they are workers, what does that change? Do you think every single worker is going to support revolution, or do you think it's more likely that many will wish to preserve the capitalist order? I do, and you calling me statist and anti-communist isn't going to make me think we should sit back while they "freely organize." If a state in nature caters to the ruling class, then when the workers become the dominant class, it means the state is used by workers. What is your opposition, then?

I said it is wrong to kill workers that oppose the state in a revolutionary period. Sorry for not being specific. I would support a workers revolution, seizing the means of production and doing away with the capitalists, the problem I see is a state being used to achieve statelessness.



You don't have to be governed? According to what, your utopian theory? What prevents "governance"? Oh right, nothing...just the confidence that people will abide by anarchist principles. I never said you made similar arguments as statists, and I'm starting to wonder if you bother to actually read what you're responding to. I don't particularly care if a constitution is forced on workers. I see no problem with forcing all members of society to say, recognize everyones right to participate in managing the means of production, or recognizing everyones right to a minimum standard of living. Do you?

Communes provide a service, that service costs the collective of workers wealth. I don't see why a commune (i.e. a collective of workers) would force their wealth onto one that does not wish to receive it. A commune is constituted of a government-governed contract, a constitution if you like. The difference between this constitution and a state constitution is one is forced on you, i.e. the governed does not agree to the terms and had no say in the rights they are entailed. I see no problem with that, I see a problem with the practicality of a constitution on a large scale, being that the state continually violates it. The constitution has no inherent legitimacy, unless it is a contract between two present parties. The only way for a constitution to be legitimate and the only way it will ensure that all the rights entailed in it are met is if every single government member and every single governed individual agree to it.

yeah you said I made the argument "love it or leave it" similar to that of state nationalists.




No basis? You think all antagonisms will magically disappear with the creation of anarchism? It is your claims that in fact have no basis...all anarchists experiments have had to resort to actions you would call statist.

If I thought all antagonisms will disappear with the abolition of the state, what would be the need for a large amount of communes to cater to the unique interests of all individuals? What are these anarchist experiments that have resorted to statism?



But that's where your idea of anarchy fails. I have no problem "forcing" society to recognize peoples right to life and I doubt many other "state socialists" do either.

I have no problem with that either but you misinterpreted that exaggerated quote.




Well seeing how loose your conditions for something to be a state are, this is correct





I'm simply arguing on your own logic. Marxists and anarchists have far different interpretations of the state. I suggest you check out the thread "A point about Marx's theory of the state."

Thank you.




Oh, so each commune subjectively determines what are illegitimate and legitimate actions for other people and can then choose the legitimate punishment for this? So in an area where it is considered perfectly acceptable to stone someone for using opium, that would be legitimate and therefore not "statist"? Sounds like moral relativism and not conductive to individual rights. You've pretty much made the term "legitimate" and "statist" and "anarchy" meaningless.


These inter-subjective consensuses are emergent. For example, humans as a whole generally see murder as wrong and other barbaric crimes. Why would this change with the abolition of the state, do you really think the state upholds civility that much? Please.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars

The state is no more so the punishment for the most little "crimes" is death via stone. What's more, I don't see an opiate user signing a voluntary contract in hopes that he is stoned to death for using opium.



So how will the resources of an already existing city be distributed if, after the revolution, there are 100 organizations all claiming to be communes and all wanting part of the resources? The same solution you offered earlier, war? Or will it be as the Bakuninists wanted...each town, village, city, etc becoming a commune, In which case the cities already exist, and people did not simply choose to live there with people they have things in common with.

I'm sure that the communes could perhaps merge or construct a contract to make sure everyone's needs are met and the resources are equally distributed. If one commune says that these resources are theirs and only theirs as opposed to the other ninety-nine communes, I'm sure the ninety-nine communes can come to a resolution with that one, be it legitimate force or diplomatic. What you have to realize though is war is costly.




Simply saying "not every single individual has to be governed" doesn't show how or why there will necessarily be no "governed." You're just repeating anarchist principles without saying why or how these principles will actually manifest themselves in reality.

A commune is a voluntary organization based on a contract between governed and government. The commune cannot exist without the two parties agreeing to the terms and therefore signing a contract. How is an individual that refuses to sign the contract a member of that commune, he didn't sign the contract.

In present day, there are Parent Teacher Organizations, voluntary organizations. Just because there is such an organization doesn't mean everyone has a need to join that organization. Just like an individual might not have a need for the service a commune provides.



This is about as dumb as if I said the working class can simply stop working for the capitalists without finding a new boss. If someone ceases participating in a commune, then do you think it will continue giving that person access to its resources? Probably not, and so they're forced to move to a different commune or stay and accept what the commune is doing. So yes, "love it or leave it."

Why would a commune all of a sudden stop providing resources? I would think the commune, i.e. everyone who constitutes the organization to be a commune, would have previously agreed to share the resources equally. I don't think that someone who ceased to be apart of a commune would expect to continue to use the commune's resources, the individual joined the commune for those resources in the first place.

In a communist society, what if the workers made some newer workers wage slaves?




Things like the means of production, the sectional ownership of which is the basis for capitalism. Your argument that people can simply leave a commune and form their own is similar to to libertarian argument that if the working class doesn't want to work for capitalists it can "simply" live off the land.

So refute my argument instead of just saying that the two arguments have similarities, so what?




No, I'm arguing against wage labor. If you don't have a problem with wage labour then I'm not sure you belong here. I have a different conception of communism that doesn't involve chaotic, seperate communes. I'd hope that there will be laws and protections against 51% simply deciding that 49% can no longer participate in administering the means of production and must now be wage slaves, but those aren't the kinds of things you support.

I think that a society based on collective ownership of the means of production while still practicing wage labor will eventually transfer to a moneyless society.

I support voluntary organizations constituting of voluntary contracts, one of these rights that everyone would be entailed would have to be collective ownership of the means of production. I am only advocating this mutualistic commune scenario as a transition from capitalism to communism. Being this is a transition period, i.e. revolutionary period, the workers as a collective are fighting a revolution against the capitalist class, why would they forbid some workers from having ownership of the means of production? Would different communist tendencies and organizations not be allowed ownership of the means of production, simply because they are apart of another voluntary organization?



You brought up the idea of competition...and it's pretty obvious that the firm that pays it's wage slaves the lowest is going to be the most successful.

I disagree. Democratically managed firms experience a rise in productivity, therefore I see them as being the most successful. What's more, is if the workers are payed a wage in paper notes, so that a few others could collect more of these paper notes, this would only affect the commune domestically, other communes may not use the same notes or not have a currency at all, so having wage slaves really doesn't help the commune rather it just makes the exploited workers angry.




I'm sorry, but I find a constitution that ensures there aren't thousands of fragmented communes waging war on each other preferable than having to join some sort of militia to defend myself against warring communes.

Constitutions are violated time and time again.

[Misanthrope]

Thanks for the compliment. I've written several posts in this thread, you're welcome to rebut the points I've made.

I'm aware you don't advocate white power communes and war for Lebensraum. The point is that the anarchist model seems to leave room for such developments.

When I discussed this matter with an anarchist poster earlier, he/she stated that

1) white nationalists are free to form their own communes
2) there will always be assholes, and they will live separetely in their own territories
3) racism might persist but will not be "worse than it is now".

I concluded that this was not too amazing an outlook and that I couldn't see myself fighting for this type of society.

Where have I been wrong?

What do you propose we do to these white nationalists, that is if they do not violate anyone's rights?

[JJM 777]

"Tyranny of the majority" is a good way to describe "democracy" where 51% of people can decide everything for 100% of people.

Instead we could (and should) use multi-democracy, where several major opinion trends get their will done simultaneously and independently from each other. A practical example:

51% of people want to build an opera house, 30% of people want to build a sport stadium, and 19% of people want to build a memorial statue for Lenin (or somebody else).
- In "democracy of simple majority", they would build one huge opera house and nothing else.
- In "multi-democracy" they would build all of these, the opera house receiving largest budget and the Lenin statue receiving smallest budget.

---

The idea of "communities doing whatever they want" sounds impractical, what would you do to a community of pedophiles for example? But even without taking such extreme examples, the very idea of people forming inner circles, which then hand-pick their favourite persons to receive membership, and then these inner circles do work and achieve a standard of living, which makes some inner circles wealthier and more strictly xenophobic than some less successful inner circles, whose poor members want to migrate to the wealthier inner circles but the immigration laws of these forbid any immigration unless the migrants have education X and minimum wealth Z, so some members of poorer inner circles hire human traffickers to smuggle them through the customs into the wealthier inner circle...

How would this be different from the nationalism and Capitalism that we already have in the world, more than enough?

[communard resolution]

51% of people want to build an opera house, 30% of people want to build a sport stadium, and 19% of people want to build a memorial statue for Lenin (or somebody else).
- In "democracy of simple majority", they would build one huge opera house and nothing else.
- In "multi-democracy" they would build all of these, the opera house receiving largest budget and the Lenin statue receiving smallest budget.

OK, but what if the budget only suffices for one of these options, and what do you do when it comes to simple yes or no decisions? Say, 51% think we need a really huge statue of Lenin to raise the morale of workers. But 49% think that this is nonsense and the budget would be better spent on more essential/rational purposes.


How would this be different from the nationalism and Capitalism that we already have in the world, more than enough?Yes, I was asking myself the same question.

[communard resolution]

What do you propose we do to these white nationalists, that is if they do not violate anyone's rights?

I want to help creating a society where white nationalism is an absurdum and does not serve any purpose to anyone. It will simply be a historic curiosity from the past. Where there is no privilege, no tribes and no territorial divide, no one will feel the need to defend their privilege, their territory, or their tribe against another.

I will not achieve such a society by granting white nationalists or other racial separatists their own land and create some sort of good people/bad people apartheid that allows arseholes to continue being arseholes. I want them to cease being arseholes because they will no longer have a reason to.

[JJM 777]

but what if the budget only suffices for one of these options, and what do you do when it comes to simple yes or no decisions?
"Yes or no" situations do exist in politics, but not so much in the economical part of politics. Any budget of any size can be divided into smaller shares, according to the same ratio as each different proposed use for the money receives support from the voters.

So the answer to your question, what if 51% want an opera house but it costs 100% of the total budget that is available, in "simple majority democracy" the 51% majority would tyrannize the 49% minority by using 100% of the budget for their little pet project, the opera house. In multi-democracy they would receive 51% of the budget in their perusal, let them do whatever they want with it. If it is not enough for an opera house, then there will be no opera house (immediately, and of such grandeur as was proposed).

[Misanthrope]

I want to help creating a society where white nationalism is an absurdum and does not serve any purpose to anyone. It will simply be a historic curiosity from the past. Where there is no privilege, no tribes and no territorial divide, no one will feel the need to defend their privilege, their territory, or their tribe against another.

I will not achieve such a society by granting white nationalists or other racial separatists their own land and create some sort of good people/bad people apartheid that allows arseholes to continue being arseholes. I want them to cease being arseholes because they will no longer have a reason to.

As do I. If say forty Caucasians with nationalist/racist views form their own township why would they continue to be racist? They have no daily encounters with the people they hate, eventually they will have no motivation or reason to uphold their racist ideals. Now if a group of people were to force these racists to associate with the people they hate, wouldn't their hate just grow and grow?

When will this witch hunt end? I could care less about a skin head that goes to rock shows and causes teenage trouble. They are not a major threat to the proletariat's liberation. The capitalist and the state are the only threats to that goal, not a teenage racist that wanks over Mein Kamf.

[Lymos]

They have no daily encounters with the people they hate, eventually they will have no motivation or reason to uphold their racist ideals.Actually it's the opposite. Racism is fed by isolation. Think of it akin to the biological instinct that if you haven't seen a species of animal before, unless part of it's defense mechanism is to be cute and cuddly, you are immediately wary because there's some specific differences between it and you.


Now if a group of people were to force these racists to associate with the people they hate, wouldn't their hate just grow and grow?It depends on the interaction.

Although with respect to everyone else here, I don't think anyone has suggested anything about forcing racists to associate with people they hate. If anything, the argument is about forcing them to mingle with their own kind. (although kind here in reality would be really vague and impractical)

Let's assume the above isn't considered though,

Then you would still have to tangle with the fact that any group (including racists) would hate it when they are forced against their will to mingle with another group they hate.

Again, let's set aside this issue.

Hate would stem from the isolated racist only community and they would become the new modern anarchist (or at least one of them.)

Among others: distrust, dissatisfaction and deceit would also increased as this group will see other groups interact more beneficially with each other and they being branded against because people around have a special bias against their views.

Such things will boil over and turn to extreme hate and then into extreme revenge because these groups will be surrounded by people similar to them who can fuel their bias while the chance of meeting someone who would lower their bias or make them more tolerant of other people and more accepting plain and just disappears until they travel to another territory by another group but then the other group would immediately be hostile to them so in order to even exist to a liveable state, these people would have to further pretend (as non-racists) and repress their hatred until this hatred applies not only to the race they are biased against but to anyone who supports a non-racist viewpoint.

This is why despite not wanting to support that other user since I have very little political knowledge, there's some truth that a poorly implemented left anarchy movement can easily morph into statism or an inferior form of it in which there are communes that might as well be states, communes that appeal to the ideology and are lucky they have merged and are in more isolated situations (producing a border-like barrier despite not officially being a border) and these trouble-making communes who because of their isolation and lack of territorial size to grow beneficially without needing support from other communes, ends up seeking as much as they can grab.

Similarly, if these trouble-making communes do indeed gain enough influence and power (be it because they are supplied by a foreign entity or because they started off with a large enough resource), their size will equally convince them to swallow the other smaller communes until it goes back to being some non-anarchist form of governance.

Assuming things go well enough to get to this degree, you could even have the modern day version of a Warring State. (Which is not so much evil/bad as it is my idea of what might happen for those who assume I am anti-anarchy.)

Edit: Oh and I have been accused here before of seeing only the bad in people but I'd just like to say, I don't think this is a case where the evil in people take over. This is more a scenario that if you put people of similar beliefs together, the isolation would only reinforce what they already belief in and make them more close-minded. (This applies regardless of whether they are good or bad.)

On the flipside, the isolation produced would definitely be a different thing from the isolation produced by modern day "fake" capitalism. (To poke a jab at that other user's comment)