Consent of the governed (An anarchist perspective)

[(A)(_|]

One of the brick walls I always seem to encounter with Anarchist thought is that it contradicts itself. All anarchists, well most, are ardent believers in direct democracy. However, what if the sovereignty of the individual could be stripped from him by some sort of a social contract advocated and supported by the majority of the people. And this is where it all goes to tatters for me. What if the majority of the people agree to a social contract that gives away their individual sovereignty to a higher entity ie: government. What then? Are there any counters for this as this has been on my mind for some time. Won't a majority's consent constitute legitimacy of a government, state?

[MarxSchmarx]

Well the classic response to this is the need for consensus, rather than simple majority. Both methods have their serious problems, although one would think that some areas of life (e.g., like setting up work shifts) could be handled by something like majority rule, while things that affect individual liberties could be handled by consensus.

[syndicat]

Individuals don't exist in isolation, as social atoms, this is an individualist assumption, which some anarchists (not Bakunin) share with liberalism. This means in each person part of who he or she is is one or more groups he or she is part of...a family, a union, a class, a nation, a racialized oppressed group, a queer minority.

Also, the personal abilities and knowledge that peopel have is also shaped by their power relations with others. Within capitalist society work in various roles in the economy shapes individuals to have mentalities and forms of knowledge appropriate to it. So if you're always told what to do, told that the people who make the decisions have authority because of their degrees, because they're smarter than you, you may resent this but if you go along day in and day out you get in the habit of deferring to others to make decisions, your self-confidence is undermined. Whereas for the classes that run things and make decisions, it tends to develop in them knowledge from the planning and decison making they do and a bloated sense of entitlement to make the decisions.

So a problem with your scenario is that you completely abstract from this real social situation. If we assume that the class system is done away with, this will only have come about because the working class has developed organizational strength and confidence and ambitious aspirations to take over control, and then they will have resources to change the educational system, change the way jobs and decision-making are structured, and both this process of change and the empowerment of the working class will bring changes to skills and attitudes. And it would tend to create less of a likelihood that the masses would simply be willing to hand power over to others.

In the present society where people are used to a few leaders making the decisions and are taught this is the way it is, then you could reasonably fear democratic decisions to hand over power to leaders.

But part of the process of working class liberation is precisely developing a contrary tending in the working class and then constructing insitutions to solidify it.

And, no, consensus is not needed to solve this problem.

[Crusade]

That's like saying no democracy makes sense because the majority of the people can vote to outlaw democracy. What if people in a socialist society vote for capitalism? Does this make socialism's pro-democratic stance contradictory? Any anarchist that would author such a contract, and the people who sign it, cannot possibly be a true Anarchist. Any group attempting to exert authority over another needs to be dealt with no differently than any other dictator.

Most importantly, how can a "majority vote" relinquish sovereignty of an individual? You do know you don't collectively own each others bodies, right? If 51% of people want to surrender all power to a small minority, whatever, let them do what they want. But let this only apply to people who voluntarily agree to such a thing. If they attempted to force people, who prefer being a citizen instead of a subject, to obey their masters, then their fate would be similar to the tyrants that fell before them.

To sum up my point: As long as it's voluntary, do what you want. Kind of like that BDSM thread in chit chat. If someone FORCED someone to partake in BDSM then it would be wrong. It's alright if it's consensual.

[MarxSchmarx]

And, no, consensus is not needed to solve this problem.
Consensus like all other methods of decision making is context dependent, as you go into length to point out.

Actually, in smaller groups where people know and trust each other, consensus generally tends to be a very reliable safe guard against oppression and rule by majority fiat. Although nobody ever claims that it is the sole route to a desirable outcome at eveyr turn, the values offered by consensus need to be appreciated. Whether it is needed or not isn't so much the question as whether it is the optimal method to employ. In some circumstances it happens to work very well, and arguably better than other methods.


. If we assume that the class system is done away with, this will only have come about because the working class has developed organizational strength and confidence and ambitious aspirations to take over control, and then they will have resources to change the educational system, change the way jobs and decision-making are structured, and both this process of change and the empowerment of the working class will bring changes to skills and attitudes. And it would tend to create less of a likelihood that the masses would simply be willing to hand power over to others.


The problem with this analysis is that it is impossible to demarcate when the vestiges of the old order have been shed, and when the "enlightened" working class now rules. There are some things that worker's controls, at various periods of the struggle, have historically failed to implement, like the abolition of the death penalty. In some respects authoritarian societies, like Heian Japan or the Vatican have been more "progressive" than places like China during the cultural revolution. Although social change in the economic sphere will eventually reverberate towards issues like the death penalty, because it requires differentiating between a "pre-revolutionary" and "post-revolutionary" phase of political development, such an approach can still lead to horrendous crimes being committed in the name of majority rule and even socialism.

[ContrarianLemming]

In an anarchist confederation, if one region suddenly decides "no, frak non coercion, lets constrict muslim rights" I can imagine that, in this unlikely senario, the rest of the surrounding regions would boycott them, constrict them. Refuse trade etc.
But like syndicate explains, I don't see such a thing happening, not if there anarchists.

[(A)(_|]

Thanks for the responses; I thought this thread was forgotten.

My point is: how is an anarchist revolution to be brought about. What would deem it an "anarchist" revolution.

I haven't read on the Spanish revolution, however I would gather that you wouldn't have a majority that supported some sort of a federal system after the revolution. How would this process pan out? Why would people suddenly decide to discredit representative democracy and start praising a majority rule. I know they call it a revolution because it completely transforms society, but how long would it take for these implacable and ideological transitions come about?

My uneducated guess is that the majority of the population on this earth would happily give away some of their sovereignty to a governmental entity. Would this mean that these governments are legitimate? Even after the revolution, if the majority consented to the existence of a government, would this government be legitimate? This is my principle inquiry.

[Blake's Baby]

... in smaller groups where people know and trust each other, consensus generally tends to be a very reliable safe guard against oppression and rule by majority fiat. Although nobody ever claims that it is the sole route to a desirable outcome at eveyr turn, the values offered by consensus need to be appreciated. Whether it is needed or not isn't so much the question as whether it is the optimal method to employ. In some circumstances it happens to work very well, and arguably better than other methods....

I'm sorry, no, I can't let this wash. Consensus is a terrible way to reach decisions. A safeguard against majority fiat? Only by handing the group over to the tyranny of the individual. If 10 people are in a lifeboat and 9 of us agree that land is thataway, I don't want to die because some prick insists he knows best and won't listen to reason.

Consensus can always be made to work in favour of the most stubborn. Eventually, everyone else will be forced to give into one person who won't back down. Even people who know they are right, but also believe in group solidarity, will be forced in the end to do what they know is wrong, if one person refuses to listen.

Obviously this will not happen in every ituation where a group finds consensus, but if the group's sensible enough anyway, what's the problem with majority voting?

I have been in too many groups and meetings where one arsehole who was wrong wrecked things by not backing down. Honestly, consensus can only work in situations where any other system would also work, and can't work in a lot of situations where voting can.

[Blake's Baby]

...
My uneducated guess is that the majority of the population on this earth would happily give away some of their sovereignty to a governmental entity. Would this mean that these governments are legitimate? Even after the revolution, if the majority consented to the existence of a government, would this government be legitimate? This is my principle inquiry.

I agree with Syndicat that the revolution itself is learning process for the working class, a process of the working class realising its own collective power. Us realising our collective power. Why would we want a return to being 'governed'?

Even if some people did, what would that entail? They could call their local soviet their 'government' if they wanted, they could ask it to tell them what to do, and then they could vote each other onto it to tell themselves that they should do things, or else! As Crusade said - it's a bit like BDSM. Play at sub/dom if you like, as long as it's all consensual it's fine; but try not to get kidnapped, tied up and raped. That's not fine. Why would people want it?

[MarxSchmarx]

... in smaller groups where people know and trust each other, consensus generally tends to be a very reliable safe guard against oppression and rule by majority fiat. Although nobody ever claims that it is the sole route to a desirable outcome at eveyr turn, the values offered by consensus need to be appreciated. Whether it is needed or not isn't so much the question as whether it is the optimal method to employ. In some circumstances it happens to work very well, and arguably better than other methods....
I'm sorry, no, I can't let this wash. Consensus is a terrible way to reach decisions. A safeguard against majority fiat? Only by handing the group over to the tyranny of the individual. If 10 people are in a lifeboat and 9 of us agree that land is thataway, I don't want to die because some prick insists he knows best and won't listen to reason.


Well since you give a traumatic case of when consensus won't work, how about pointing out how well majority rule works when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner?

Consensus can always be made to work in favour of the most stubborn. Eventually, everyone else will be forced to give into one person who won't back down. Even people who know they are right, but also believe in group solidarity, will be forced in the end to do what they know is wrong, if one person refuses to listen.

Obviously this will not happen in every ituation where a group finds consensus, but if the group's sensible enough anyway, what's the problem with majority voting?

The issue isn't whether the group is "sensible" enough, the issue is whether there are some things we as a society or a group may not wish to leave up to majority rule. Just as there are issues that we can't leave up to consensus.

[Blake's Baby]

Well since you give a traumatic case of when consensus won't work, how about pointing out how well majority rule works when two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner?

The issue isn't whether the group is "sensible" enough, the issue is whether there are some things we as a society or a group may not wish to leave up to majority rule. Just as there are issues that we can't leave up to consensus.

Not aware that either sheep or wolves vote actually. But the example is flawed anyway - the wolves wouldn't be bound by the sheep refusing consent.

Yes, I give a traumatic case. That's rather the point isn't it? In traumatic cases, consensus doesn't work, I think we have agreed. I'll take it that we've agreed anyway.

But in non-traumatic cases, majority rule works just as well as consensus.

So, the matrix looks something like:

tramatic cases: voting yes - consensus no
non-traumatic: voting yes - consensus yes

So in either case voting works, but in one case consensus doesn't, so there's no logical reason to adopt the necessity for consensus.

You do agree I hope that one person who is sufficiently stubborn can hold 9 other people to ransom by refusing to give in, even though everyone else knows he's wrong, don't you? You can see how this happens?

Right; all that having been said I absolutely agree with you that in some situations 'democracy' means the many picking on the few. More often, it means the few, manipulating the many, to pick on another few. But what's the likelihood of that happening under socialism, honestly?

The original point was whether or not some people would want to 'give up power', however, not oppress others. And in that context, consensus or voting doesn't really come into it. Neither is more likely to produce a result one way than the other, I think.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm sorry, no, I can't let this wash. Consensus is a terrible way to reach decisions. A safeguard against majority fiat? Only by handing the group over to the tyranny of the individual. If 10 people are in a lifeboat and 9 of us agree that land is thataway, I don't want to die because some prick insists he knows best and won't listen to reason.

Consensus can always be made to work in favour of the most stubborn. Eventually, everyone else will be forced to give into one person who won't back down. Even people who know they are right, but also believe in group solidarity, will be forced in the end to do what they know is wrong, if one person refuses to listen.

Obviously this will not happen in every ituation where a group finds consensus, but if the group's sensible enough anyway, what's the problem with majority voting?

I have been in too many groups and meetings where one arsehole who was wrong wrecked things by not backing down. Honestly, consensus can only work in situations where any other system would also work, and can't work in a lot of situations where voting can.

Concensus is also tacitly authoritarian, he forces people to conform to everyone elses opinion, for example, what if one person is correct and everyone ele is wrong? tThat person is going to get pressured to conform.
Although I don't think that would be the case with people who know eachother personally, so local consensus isn't unreasonable.

[MarxSchmarx]

More often, it means the few, manipulating the many, to pick on another few. But what's the likelihood of that happening under socialism, honestly?

The original point was whether or not some people would want to 'give up power', however, not oppress others. And in that context, consensus or voting doesn't really come into it. Neither is more likely to produce a result one way than the other, I think.

Perhaps we are starting from distinct vantage points. (A)(_|'s original question dealt with how "direct democracy" could "strip away" what s/he calls "the sovereignty of the individual". And majority votes can indeed do that; whether they will in fact do so depends on the contingent economic realities of the times, as you point out, among other things.

Consensus, whatever its merits or demerits, alone has a built in mechanism to prevent this from happening. Moreover because any rights are per se voluntarily forfeited, one could even contend whether truly an individual can foresake sovereignty under a consensus based regime.


You do agree I hope that one person who is sufficiently stubborn can hold 9 other people to ransom by refusing to give in, even though everyone else knows he's wrong, don't you? You can see how this happens?Again, I think the issue is that we are starting from different perspectives. To illustrate this, consider this thought experiment. If we view some existing, stateless/classless order as optimal, anything that can change it is suboptimal. Because consensus can prevent such change from occurring, it would be preferable. As a method qua method, the same cannot be said for majority voting. And moreover only the full consent of every member of the group can facilitate that change, so if there is a departure from the optimal social order, it is with the full consent of everyone. Will majority rule be just as impermeable to deviation from the optimal state? Perhaps it will, but only with consensus can we be reasonably certain the full agency of everyone involved in "making things worse."

However, if you believe that the social order can be improved indefinitely, then consensus would, as you note, hold the rest of society ransom to everyone else, and would clearly be undesirable.

It seems to me that there some areas of life that can be improved indefinitely, for example in economic affairs, or, as you note, people on a boat adrift somewhere in the ocean. However, there are other areas of life, such as a "freedom of conscience" or some such that will be at a pretty optimal state in a stateless, classless society. It seems to me, therefore, that on balance the latter case approximates a case where consensus, or a situation of a small minority being able to deny changing the system, is a reliable guarantor, whilst the former approximates a situation where majority vote is preferable.

[Blake's Baby]

...If we view some existing, stateless/classless order as optimal, anything that can change it is suboptimal. Because consensus can prevent such change from occurring, it would be preferable...

... if you believe that the social order can be improved indefinitely, then consensus would, as you note, hold the rest of society ransom to everyone else, and would clearly be undesirable. ...

Very good point well made.

I don't think the first is possible. There is always room for improvement in my view. So we are approaching this from different philosophical perspectives, and the idea that there might be a 'perfect state' that could only be changed for the worse hadn't occurred to me. But, logically, if such a state were possible, you would be right that consensus would in one way be better in one particular instance - if it was a 'twelve angry men' scenario, of one lone defender of truth.

However, consider the case where, out of a desire to preserve group solidarity, the other 11 went along with not a lone defender of truth, but a lone defender of idiocy.

I don't want to reach a consensus with racists, for instance. I want to be able to outvote them. If, as you say, we are in a pretty optimal state anyway, and a small group advocates action that would disrupt that optimal state, I want a mechanism that will stop them; consensus won't (they won't back down; the only option left is agree with them).

The other problem of course is then defining what 'good' and 'bad' policies are. Again, I think majorities are the best way to do this.