Why I am an anarchist and why I do not support democracy

[Emile Armand]

This is a post I made on a separate thread:
"The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?"
I stand behind this 100%, I believe democracy is system of oppression and must be abolished for mankind to progress, I thought it would be interesting to see what other anarchists thought of my breakdown of democracy, I typed up that little bit in just a few seconds but I could expand on the central idea if you need/want me to.

[Steve_j]

Yes but if the minority within a majority democratically create an autonomist society, whats the issue there? And if you have a problem with that, then whats your solution?

[#FF0000]

The more consistent anarchists I know have always been anti-democracy, and favored consensus. Malatesta had an essay on this, which I'm trying to find...

[FreeFocus]

There's also a little principle called "free association" that we prescribe to..

[Glenn Beck]

Compulsion is not oppression unless it is an unwarranted imposition. For a democratic decision to be just everyone needs to have a say in proportion to the degree to which the matter is their concern. An individual harming or depriving the majority in the name of freedom is as much a violation of justice as the majority violating an individual's autonomy without adequate justification.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Why is this in Politics?

[28350]

Clearly a consensus should be taken to find everyone's least favorite resolution, which should then be exacted, leaving everyone equally unhappy.

[Crusade]

This is a post I made on a separate thread:
"The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?"
I stand behind this 100%, I believe democracy is system of oppression and must be abolished for mankind to progress, I thought it would be interesting to see what other anarchists thought of my breakdown of democracy, I typed up that little bit in just a few seconds but I could expand on the central idea if you need/want me to.

Are you a capitalist? Or are you a mutualist/something like it?

[Agnapostate]

Are you a capitalist? Or are you a mutualist/something like it?

As a reminder, the pseudo-anarchists that you're thinking of (proponents of the oxymoronic "anarcho"-capitalism), are generally not capitalists; no capitalist would be so foolish as to advocate the elimination of the centralized managerial structure in the state that sustains him.

[Crusade]

As a reminder, the pseudo-anarchists that you're thinking of (proponents of the oxymoronic "anarcho"-capitalism), are generally not capitalists; no capitalist would be so foolish as to advocate the elimination of the centralized managerial structure in the state that sustains him.

Well, to rephrase my question then:

Are you a mutualist or are you a Capo-Masochist?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Are we talking about democracy like the U.S. or something?

[Raúl Duke]

I actually support democracy, the will of the majority. My basis is on the ideal of equalization of power and the end of hierarchy.


Compulsion is not oppression unless it is an unwarranted imposition. For a democratic decision to be just everyone needs to have a say in proportion to the degree to which the matter is their concern. An individual harming or depriving the majority in the name of freedom is as much a violation of justice as the majority violating an individual's autonomy without adequate justification.
I agree with this mostly

[Animal Farm Pig]

Funny quotation I heard somewhere-- "Democracy is six wolves and one lamb sitting down to decide what's for dinner."

Look, I'm as much against ruling by vote as the next guy. That being said, I would watch out about talking about "not infringing the rights of the minority." That argument has for a long time been used to protect the property of the bourgeoisie and suppress (truly) democratic movements.




Clearly a consensus should be taken to find everyone's least favorite resolution, which should then be exacted, leaving everyone equally unhappy.
This man obviously has trained as an attorney.

[Tablo]

Democracy needs to be localized so as to best meet the needs of the most people. Is democracy perfect? No. Is democracy the best way we know? Without a doubt, yes. We just need to recognize the minority has all the right in the world to go do their own thing. As long as no one imposes any level of force upon them then it is all cool.

Consensus is not effective. All it does is allow everyone to be unhappy with the outcome. I think consensus is best for very small groups of people. When making decisions for an entire commune of a few hundred people it isn't the way to go.

[ContrarianLemming]

This is a post I made on a separate thread:
"The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?"
I stand behind this 100%, I believe democracy is system of oppression and must be abolished for mankind to progress, I thought it would be interesting to see what other anarchists thought of my breakdown of democracy, I typed up that little bit in just a few seconds but I could expand on the central idea if you need/want me to.

why couldn't anarhcism have laws which protect minorities?

[Robocommie]

Compulsion is not oppression unless it is an unwarranted imposition. For a democratic decision to be just everyone needs to have a say in proportion to the degree to which the matter is their concern. An individual harming or depriving the majority in the name of freedom is as much a violation of justice as the majority violating an individual's autonomy without adequate justification.

Indeed, I'd say that's the very motivating factor of what makes us socialists as opposed to liberals, because while liberals are concerned solely about the rights and freedoms of the individual, we recognize that the actions of the individual can be deleterious to the welfare of many others, whether they should constitute a minority group or a majority group.

[Robocommie]

Look, I'm as much against ruling by vote as the next guy. That being said, I would watch out about talking about "not infringing the rights of the minority." That argument has for a long time been used to protect the property of the bourgeoisie and suppress (truly) democratic movements.

Only if we actually recognize property rights as being an actual, inalienable right. That's more in line with the philosophy of John Locke and other liberal thinkers from the Enlightenment, as opposed to later socialist thinkers.

It's far less problematic to simply deny that the right to own a factory or a mine or the rents of farm workers is an actual right, as opposed to a form of theft or exploitation, then it is to get rid of the idea of preserving the rights and freedoms of the individual.

[Old Man Diogenes]

This is a post I made on a separate thread:
"The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?"
I stand behind this 100%, I believe democracy is system of oppression and must be abolished for mankind to progress, I thought it would be interesting to see what other anarchists thought of my breakdown of democracy, I typed up that little bit in just a few seconds but I could expand on the central idea if you need/want me to.

As a matter of curiosity, not to agree or disagree with you at this point, what other alternative do you propose?

[Q]

The more consistent anarchists I know have always been anti-democracy, and favored consensus. Malatesta had an essay on this, which I'm trying to find...
Consensus looks good on paper, many revolutionary left groups favor this model. In reality it is very clique-ish where natural leaders have the biggest say and are unaccountable, because disagreeing would mean "breaking consensus", etc.

I prefer democracy which, as Luxemburg phrased it, is essentially the right to disagree. Being in a minority when a decision is reached is not necessarily bad as decisions can be changed at a later point in the future.

[syndicat]

i'm not an individualist because it is anti-democratic. the only way to avoid a minority being in power over others is through democratic decision-making.

moreover, individiuals are not absolutely unique atoms but are shaped by the groups they have been raised in and live in, such as their family, class, ethnic group and language group. this means any individual has many common interests and perceptions with others. i'm opposed to consensus because it amounts to tyranny of the minority.

on the other hand, groups do need to try to obtain unity, and thus should give everyone an opportunity to be heard. but disagreement is inevitable and simple majority is the only voting method that doesn't empower a minority.

if you lose a vote in a meeting you're not being oppressed. oppression is a structure of some sort that oppresses groups, such as the class structure, racial inequality, patriarchy, homophobia, etc.

as i see it, libertarian socialism is ultra-democratic in the sense that it has a strong emphasis on face-to-face direct democracy, and wants to use democratic methods to prevent any sort of separate bureaucratic class or hierarchical power from emerging.

but different groups are affected differently by decisions, and this is why decisions that have the most effect on a particular group need to be made by that group.

[Q]

On this topic I'd like to point to this thread about democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-t136561/index.html).

[robbo203]

This is a post I made on a separate thread:
"The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?"
I stand behind this 100%, I believe democracy is system of oppression and must be abolished for mankind to progress, I thought it would be interesting to see what other anarchists thought of my breakdown of democracy, I typed up that little bit in just a few seconds but I could expand on the central idea if you need/want me to.

I think your argument is far too sweeping . For a start, when you are talking about democracy you should be aware that there are different kinds of democracy such as

Representative democracy - which is typical of present day bourgeois democracy and does indeed lend it itself to leadership politics which IO too oppose

Delegatory democracy - where delegates are instructed on how to vote by some larger body. This could be the most suitable form for the socialist movement to use in democratically capturing state power.

Direct democracy - the most democratic of all forms of democracy which could well come into its own in a socialist society

The problem is there are many situations where joint decision making is inevitable. If you reject democacy as an approach then you are only left with autocracy in these cases. The decisions are imposed by an elite on the majority. Whatever the defects of decomratic decisionmaking it is far preferable to this.

You need to recognise that no man is an island and sometimes the people have to get together to make joint decisions that affect them all. Better they make those decisions democratically than not at all

[Robocommie]

if you lose a vote in a meeting you're not being oppressed. oppression is a structure of some sort that oppresses groups, such as the class structure, racial inequality, patriarchy, homophobia, etc.

There's this one moment in the documentary The Take, where one member of an Argentinian cooperative is talking about how since the group takes votes on every major decision, they take a lot of votes in general, and that means they learn to appreciate how good it is to have a voice, but also you learn how to accept not getting your way in a vote.

[syndicat]

There's this one moment in the documentary The Take, where one member of an Argentinian cooperative is talking about how since the group takes votes on every major decision, they take a lot of votes in general, and that means they learn to appreciate how good it is to have a voice, but also you learn how to accept not getting your way in a vote.

good point. and that's part of learning to be social and cooperative.

[Homo Songun]

why couldn't anarhcism have laws which protect minorities?

I have a pear. It came from a pear tree. Now I have a law. Where did it come from?

Give it some thought.

[FreeFocus]

I have a pear. It came from a pear tree. Now I have a law. Where did it come from?

Give it some thought.

Let me try - a law tree?






:lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ok, well here's my response to the OP from the original thread it came up in:


The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?As long as there is some scarcity then decisions that effect the majority of people are going to be made by someone or some group. Right after a revolution, who will decide how to divide up resources, where to build new hospitals and schools? All this initial planning will require coordination beyond just local decision-making. I think democracy - bottom up - with any representatives being re-callable, decisions being made transparently among the group who selects the rep so that the rep just carries out their decisions, and 100% accountable (and not a set position with good wages) is the best way to ensure that in big decisions, the most cooperative decisions are made and that no clique can take over.

Small "d" democracy doesn't "create" oppression in the class sense of the oppression we seen in modern bourgeois parliamentary democracy - or dictatorships for that matter. This oppression in modern society comes from the class struggle and the need of a minority to impress it's will onto the majority. One way they do this is through a twisted version of democracy which allows for limited input from the majority and little accountability for the bureaucracy. Their goal is the appearance of a legal way to air grievances, but in reality the system is set up to protect minority rule: laws are written to be incomprehensible unless you are specialized and trained in law and know some Latin (it helps if you own a wig too); if popular demands make it as far as being heard in the Parliament/Congress, these bodies are full of procedural bullshit to slow these demands (think healthcare in the US) and then the supposed establishment proponents can throw their hands in the air and say "we tried, but damn that arcane rule that tossed out the votes".

Democracy outside of class conflict is just a way of making decisions collectively - if you are part of the minority vote you are not "oppressed", you simply loose the argument. Without class division and conflict, then loosing the vote just means that things didn't go your way in that instance. Of course I think there should be some guarantees for personal freedom and rights for the minority to call for another vote after a short period of time or some kind of assessment period, but in general, I think that while workers after a revolution might come to their decisions in various ways in their workplaces and communities and neighborhoods - the big decisions that effect large numbers of people should be done through democratic vote.

[Dean]

Well, to rephrase my question then:

Are you a mutualist or are you a Capo-Masochist?
The best term for those fools is "propertarian."

[bots]

I think democracy - bottom up - with any representatives being re-callable, decisions being made transparently among the group who selects the rep so that the rep just carries out their decisions, and 100% accountable (and not a set position with good wages) is the best way to ensure that in big decisions, the most cooperative decisions are made and that no clique can take over.

I don't see how this would prevent a clique from taking over. Clever, nasty people can always find a way to take over.

People need to work together to get things done. We probably always will, unless we develop the technology that would allow us to download any information and skill set into our brains and augment our bodies to excel at any task.

I think the problem with the defense of democracy is the idea that the will of majority = correct. In most cases the majority is easily fooled, easily led, and stupid as hell. Will this change after our great anarchist utopia is declared? I'm sure some people will decide to take personal responsibility seriously. I have little faith that the "majority" will get their shit together. Many people like to be led. This is probably why Leninist/Fascist/Nationalist organizations have historically been so successful in subverting rebellion to their cause.

[bots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8lYA3zWgU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8lYA3zWgU)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't see how this would prevent a clique from taking over. Clever, nasty people can always find a way to take over.To what end? Power hungry political bosses isn't a character type that has existed since the neolithic era, it is a modern invention coming out of the needs of modern (minority ruling) class society... dictators like Bismark or Stalin represented classes in society... in Germany, the needs of the bourgeois, in Russia, the needs of the emerging USSR elite (in both cases to use autocratic state power to build up industry and create a unified nation out of a lot of semi-feudal regions).

Also, in feudal times, the small ruling elite literally had nothing to do with people being clever and nasty... those rulers were idiots and born into their positions.

In my view, in order for there to even be working class revolution, working class consciousness would have progressed to the point that workers see themselves as leaders as a group and individually. So democracy (the will of the majority) is precisely the defense against nasty self-motivated individuals controlling the decision-making.


I think the problem with the defense of democracy is the idea that the will of majority = correct. In most cases the majority is easily fooled, easily led, and stupid as hell. Are you a leftist? If you think people are stupid as hell, why would you want them to be in power?

Most people are easily led and fooled because what are their other options in a non-revolutionary period? Most people deep-down know they have no control over most of the important things in their lives and, since they aren't revolutionaries yet, they have to more or less accept the narrow set of options they are given.

But in the history of upheavals, it's commonly reported how normally passive people begin to take an active role in shaping their lives as well as collectively shaping history. Workers who made up the Paris commune weren't, for the most part, sitting around waiting for revolution - they were living their lives and accepting the status quo.


Will this change after our great anarchist utopia is declared?I sure hope that anarchism/communism isn't "declared" by someone. That would make it highly suspect. Revolution, as the history of many "socialist" dictators shows can not be given to the working class, it must be made and won by the working class: it's that process of masses of workers organizing together; forming councils; learning how to do collective decision-making; defending against outside threats as well as internal opportunists and would-be tyrants; winning over allies from non-worker classes (like small business owners or, in some places, peasants)... that "teaches" the working class how to be the new ruling class of society.

[bots]

To what end? Power hungry political bosses isn't a character type that has existed since the neolithic era,

Are you sure about that?


Also, in feudal times, the small ruling elite literally had nothing to do with people being clever and nasty... those rulers were idiots and born into their positions.

Yet they were somehow clever and nasty enough to maintain their positions. What does that say about your average serf?


In my view, in order for there to even be working class revolution, working class consciousness would have progressed to the point that workers see themselves as leaders as a group and individually. So democracy (the will of the majority) is precisely the defense against nasty self-motivated individuals controlling the decision-making.

Yeah that's great.


Are you a leftist? If you think people are stupid as hell, why would you want them to be in power?

I don't want people to be "in" power. That's where you and me differ my friend.


Most people are easily led and fooled because what are their other options in a non-revolutionary period? Most people deep-down know they have no control over most of the important things in their lives and, since they aren't revolutionaries yet, they have to more or less accept the narrow set of options they are given.

Most people are easily fooled and led because they don't want to be responsible for their own actions. It's a character type and I'm sorry to say but some people will simply NEVER stop being submissive servants. I agree that some people are just too beaten down to lift their heads up and realize they are free. But I'm also wise enough to realize that many, many people will fight to the death to stay chained to some master or another.


But in the history of upheavals, it's commonly reported how normally passive people begin to take an active role in shaping their lives as well as collectively shaping history.

...until they get tired and the commies or the fash or whoever gets their hooks into them.


I sure hope that anarchism/communism isn't "declared" by someone.

You're being too literal. Lighten up.

Also I'd like to point out that I haven't lost all faith. As Gogol Bordello so eloquently points out in that song I posted, people will generally get along pretty well without rulers when they need to. Every time I go to a street party or the few times I've been in the midst of rioting I feel a little bit of hope. The point, I think, should be to extend this joyous freedom for as long as possible.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

This is a post I made on a separate thread:
"The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?"
I stand behind this 100%, I believe democracy is system of oppression and must be abolished for mankind to progress, I thought it would be interesting to see what other anarchists thought of my breakdown of democracy, I typed up that little bit in just a few seconds but I could expand on the central idea if you need/want me to.

If all forms are leadership are forcing the will of someone onto another, then is prescribing that democracy should be abolished forcing the will of the minority (in this particualar case, a minority of one - you.) onto the majority...Surely this is a worse thing than democracy?

Basically, any kind of society at all will have to prohibit some things, and encourage others. Democracy will cause society to orientate towards serving the needs of most. The only alternative I can see to this is a society ruled by a minority.

[The Red Next Door]

What wrong with oppressing those who oppress us?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are you sure about that?Are you not?

I'm as sure about that as I can be without a time-machine. In pre-class societies, what would the point of trying to put yourself above others be? There was no real surplus of food or anything and so there was no basis for people to have involuntary power over others in the group. There undoubtedly were inter-personal conflicts but that is totally different than organizing society in a way that keeps your clique (or class) in power over others.


Yet they were somehow clever and nasty enough to maintain their positions. What does that say about your average serf?It says nothing about induvidual serfs. In fact peasant uprisings and even peasant armies taking power (in Dynastic China specifically) happened frequently. Peasants had trouble maintaining power however because peasants are tied to the land by definition and so if peasants formed an army, they ceased being peasants and became soldiers who didn't make a living through farming, but made their living by appropriating or being given supplies from other peasants... which is what the aristocracy did to begin with (though probably much more harshly).


I don't want people to be "in" power. That's where you and me differ my friend. You want houseplants in power? Mailboxes deciding how to allocate resources?

Someone has to make decisions about things that effect many people - workers will have to make decisions on how to run production, what to produce, where to ship it, how to coordinate with workers who do the shipping, how to coordinate with workers who produce raw materials or those who develop things from the raw materials your workplace produces, how to make sure that housing/schools/hospitals/etc.

IMO these decisions should be made collectively by workers. I don't think consensus is the best way to do that, but if workers at a workplace decide to handle things that way, then that's their decision. But decisions have to be made and if all workers are not "in power" then who is? Who makes these collective decisions if not the people who make up the collective?

[bots]

In pre-class societies, what would the point of trying to put yourself above others be? There was no real surplus of food or anything and so there was no basis for people to have involuntary power over others in the group. There undoubtedly were inter-personal conflicts but that is totally different than organizing society in a way that keeps your clique (or class) in power over others.

Off the top of my head the point of trying to put yourself above others would be:

-First choice at the most virile or fertile mates.
-The added protection resulting from being a more "valued" member of your group.
-First choice of food.

This is from the perspective of someone trying to ensure the survival of their genes. On the other side of the coin are the people who would prefer survival based on servitude and putting their faith in a leader, the best hunter, the elder, or whatever.


It says nothing about induvidual serfs. In fact peasant uprisings and even peasant armies taking power (in Dynastic China specifically) happened frequently. Peasants had trouble maintaining power however because peasants are tied to the land by definition and so if peasants formed an army, they ceased being peasants and became soldiers who didn't make a living through farming, but made their living by appropriating or being given supplies from other peasants... which is what the aristocracy did to begin with (though probably much more harshly).

I think you missed my point here.


IMO these decisions should be made collectively by workers. I don't think consensus is the best way to do that, but if workers at a workplace decide to handle things that way, then that's their decision. But decisions have to be made and if all workers are not "in power" then who is? Who makes these collective decisions if not the people who make up the collective?

Have you never been in a situation where decisions are made fluidly, without structure or conversation?

[Emile Armand]

I'm sorry it took me so long to repost but I've been quite busy with summatives and exams for school, the first post I'd like to address is this one:

What wrong with oppressing those who oppress us?
Imagine a world where men are second class citizens to women and whites are slaves to blacks... there you go.
I fight ALL forms of oppression.

[Emile Armand]

To those of you who ask me what I propose as an alternative, see this post:

The more consistent anarchists I know have always been anti-democracy, and favored consensus. Malatesta had an essay on this, which I'm trying to find...
Democracy leads to minorities and minorities lead to oppression. The best and easiest way to vocalize my views may be through this quote from Benjamin Tucker "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."

[Jimmie Higgins]

Off the top of my head the point of trying to put yourself above others would be:

-First choice at the most virile or fertile mates.
-The added protection resulting from being a more "valued" member of your group.
-First choice of food.Well this part of the discussion is a bit of a derailment, but I think it's important to locate the material reasons for classes and oppression if we are debating about oppression coming from democracy or the idea that a majority vote constitutes some kind of class oppression.

I think, based on what many anthropologists have discovered about early human groups along with observations of more contemporary hunting/gathering pre/semi-class societies, there's pretty good evidence that these kinds of societies were much less opressive than modern class societies. In the Iroquois nation there were early class distinctions and leadership and so on and yet society was much more egalitarian than you seem to think pre-class societies were. This isn't because native Americans on the east cost of north America were much better than anyone else, it comes out of the nature of societies where production is much more spread out over the society. Although the "chief" could declare war in Iroquois society, the women in the society controlled the production of supplies in society and therefore had veto power. So even if the chief was the nastiest and greediest person who ever lived personally, the structure of that society effectively prevented the kind of tyranny we see today.

Oppression of a systematic nature comes from class divisions, not personality flaws, original sin, bad humors or any other magical voodoo.


This is from the perspective of someone trying to ensure the survival of their genes. On the other side of the coin are the people who would prefer survival based on servitude and putting their faith in a leader, the best hunter, the elder, or whatever.Along with some Howard Zinn, I'd recommend checking out some Engels "Origin of Private Property, Family, and the State". Classes developed out of material conditions, not out of the desires of assholes to rule other people. When agriculture developed, there was more of a surpluss than in hunter and gathering societies and so there was more free time, but also a need for specialized people: people who could defend the surplus or the village (since with agriculture, came a more settled - and vulnerable - way of life); and people to keep records of supplies. I've read that anthropologists think that the need to keep track or grains or traded goods lead to written symbols and math. These specialists probably did not do the same harvesting as other people since they had different tasks and over time these specialists became early knightly (defense) or priestly (written records/surplus storage) classes - they needed the other people because these early classes did not harvest food for themselves but the food harvesters needed these specialized positions.


I think you missed my point here.Ok, what was your point about surfs then?


Have you never been in a situation where decisions are made fluidly, without structure or conversation? How does a group make a group decision without conversation? Are you telepathic:blink:?!

Yes, structure is usually not needed or desired in small social group - I don't know what you mean by "fluid decisions" - you mean being flexible? A decision that is fluid would not be a decision?

Now, please apply your fluid decision made with no discussion or conversation to this scenario:

The revolution has just happened. Imagine some areas don't have adequate hospitals and schools - how do workers organize this if not through some kind of prioritizing of needs? And how do you ensure that all the communities that need the hospital, all the workers who will work at the hospital, and all of the workers in pharmaceutical manufacturing can coordinate together? What if the hospital workers are set, but the pharma manufacturers have many different demands from other new worker's hospitals? How do they prioritize and decide what to make first, how to ship it out, and who gets what they need first?

All this requires a high level of coordination between large groups. Even consensus on such a large scale is practically worthless since what hospital workers are going to say, "Nah, we don't need blood plasma or penicillin... let the other hospitals go first. I don't like these fuckers we have to treat anyway"?

So how would workers deal with this situation or other large decisions that effect many many people - if not collectivly with all other people who would be effected by the consequences of the decision?

IMO the best way to deal with large scale decisions - particularly right after a revolution when there will probably be temporary shortages of teachers, doctors, and decent housing - is some kind of democratic decision-making. Once these temporary inequalities (in housing, distribution of hospitals and other infrastructure) have been overcome, then yes - I think most things would just be done on request. Once the new hospitals, for example, have been set up, Pharma workers will have a better framework for know what is needed and where and so without the urgent shortage, they can just build up a little extra stock and make medicine available apron the request of local hospitals.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To those of you who ask me what I propose as an alternative, see this post:

Democracy leads to minorities and minorities lead to oppression. The best and easiest way to vocalize my views may be through this quote from Benjamin Tucker "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."

Redheads are a minority in this society - are they oppressed by the majority brown-hairs? More people like Pop music than jazz - so do pop music listeners exploit or oppress jazz fans?

But on the other hand, minorities like the rich, or the aristocrats in previous societies oppressed the majority of the population. So how does a majority/minority divide CREATE oppression?

[revolution inaction]

I think your argument is far too sweeping . For a start, when you are talking about democracy you should be aware that there are different kinds of democracy such as

Representative democracy - which is typical of present day bourgeois democracy and does indeed lend it itself to leadership politics which IO too oppose

Delegatory democracy - where delegates are instructed on how to vote by some larger body. This could be the most suitable form for the socialist movement to use in democratically capturing state power.

Direct democracy - the most democratic of all forms of democracy which could well come into its own in a socialist society


i've always thought that use of delegates was a part of direct democracy not something diffrent?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i've always thought that use of delegates was a part of direct democracy not something diffrent?

If I remember correctly, in a direct democracy citizens vote on issues for themselves as individuals, rather than delegating the decision or voting for a representative.

The most obvious flaw of representative democracy (which is what most first world nations supposedly are) is that it creates the professional politician, a most strange beast whose actual (rather than stated) purpose is to get itself elected.

[RED DAVE]

Coming from the OP, consensus is an oppressive form of decision making.

(1) It can one result in one individual or a minority group imposes its will on the majority.

(2) It results in pressure on individuals to agree with the majority without permitting them the integrity of keeping their own opinions to fight for them another day.

RED DAVE

[revolution inaction]

If I remember correctly, in a direct democracy citizens vote on issues for themselves as individuals, rather than delegating the decision or voting for a representative.


but its isn't delegating a decision if the individual groups pick delegates who then meet. The decisions are still made by the members of hte gorups, no the deligats, the deligates are just there to provide a means to coordinate between the groups.

I defiantly have the impression that what most people mean by direct democracy includes the use of delegates when dealing with more people then can easily meet and discuss things or people spread over a large area. if it didn't it would be completely impractical

[lombas]

Demography forces us to impose democracy on the minority that longs for a model of consensus. I'm obliged to think these people should vote with their feet if they disagree.

Free associations on a political level are only possible in certain parts of this world.

[Lulznet]

This is a post I made on a separate thread:
"The will of the majority is law in democracy. When the majority make the rules that leaves the minority powerless. Democracy essentially creates oppression, this is why I am an anarchist and not a Communist, all forms of leadership are forcing the will of a certain group onto another. If a man is capable of ruling himself why must any foreign powers govern him?"
I stand behind this 100%, I believe democracy is system of oppression and must be abolished for mankind to progress, I thought it would be interesting to see what other anarchists thought of my breakdown of democracy, I typed up that little bit in just a few seconds but I could expand on the central idea if you need/want me to.
Yet what about when the minority attempts to rule above the majority? :bored:

Democracy seems to lack in this area but the alternative which allows the minority to overturn the will of the majority is even worse. :cool:

[The Something]

Consensus based decision making and free association.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Democracy leads to minorities and minorities lead to oppression. The best and easiest way to vocalize my views may be through this quote from Benjamin Tucker "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."

As I asked before, then what else do you propose? What other alternative? Surely a direct democracy with free association (where if the decision made is so repellent to the minority they have the freedom to leave) is preferable to minority rule, but perhaps there is more of a choice than democracy (referring to a decentralized one) or dictatorship of the minority. I can't think of any of the top of my head, so I'm hoping you'll enlighten me.

[Raúl Duke]

You can have a participatory democracy with limits (i.e. the community councils only make decisions regarding things in the "public sphere", whatever, etc.).

It's been theorized under the label "isocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isocracy)"