Parpolity - Participatory Politics

[Sosa]

Is Parpolity as theorized by Stephen Shalom HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parpolity), compatible with communism or anarchism?

Are there any critiques and what are they?

[MarxSchmarx]

Honestly I think it lacks originality, creativity and is frankly snake oil.

I think it is really just a rehashing of how an idealized, slightly more localized and democratized, version of the Anglo-Saxon political system is supposed to work. It's uninspiring and perhaps its biggest flaw is its failure to recognize that this Anglo-saxon political system is a unique creature of capitalism down to its very foundations.

How this Shalom person has a cushy job teaching our young people and conducting research is a little bit of a mystery to me. I've come across this Shalom's work before and it always strikes just a bunch of glorified townhalls and an amazing amount of bureaucratic overlay. I have never seen a serious review of his ideas outside the north american Z magazine crowd. At best it is a hodgepodge of ideas from a utopian agrarian pre-capitalist democracy - which is on some level OK, but the originality and utility of his insights are seriously compromised. At worst is just a more diffuse form of liberal democracy as practiced in most of the first world.

Whereas the parecon stuff is also ignored by mainstream economics, at least it has the advantage of being (1) rather creative and original, (2) vaguely plausible, (3) at least in principle quantifiable and testable, and (4) forces us to rethink concepts like efficiency. It also addresses a potential conflict between planning and democracy. This parpolity stuff does none of that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Funny, comrade, because I thought the main problem with parpolity was its reliance on the council model.

[syndicat]

Honestly I think it lacks originality, creativity and is frankly snake oil.
who cares?


I think it is really just a rehashing of how an idealized, slightly more localized and democratized, version of the Anglo-Saxon political system is supposed to work.

sorry but you're wrong. the American political system isn't based on direct democracy, in case you hadn't noticed.

the base units in political governance would be small community assemblies, say a group of 25 to 75 people in a group of nearby dwellings. then he supposes these base resident groups would be sort of merged into a ward or neighborhood unit. the smaller base units would elect delegates to this neighborhood assembly.

finally there would be assemblies for a larger region such as a metropolitan area or a country.

the main problem with it, in my opinion, is the indirect system of election. the neighborhood assemly of base delegates would elect a delegate to the next broader area and so on. I think there are going to be inevitably problems controlling the delegates at the broader area.

from an anarchist point of view, his heart is in the right place since he wants to ground governance in direct democracy.

I would suggest that the neighborhood body should be a larger assembly that includes the smaller base groups. so it's still direct democracy. i'd also suggest reducing the numbers of "levels" by having the regional body as a large congress with delegates from the various neighborhood assemblies.

Shalom discusses a number of ways to ensure control over the delegates. I think one of the most valuable is his idea that if a decision by a regional or national congress of delegates is controversial or important, it could be referred back to the base assemblies at the neighborhood level for debate and discussion.

I think this is much better than the idea of "mandating" delegates. As Shalom points out, the purpose of a body of delegates is to deliberate, debate, and then come up with a decision or proposal. delegates will come from all over and may not be familiar with the considerations brought by other delegates. it's reasonable then to not have them bound in their votes by a "mandate" from the base assembly they represent, but allow them to use their judgment in coming to an agreement with the other delegates. if the people in the base assembly don't agree with the judgement of the delegate, they can always force the decision to be sent to the base assemblies for decision.

I think this idea of a right to have a matter sent to the base assemblies is an innovative and valuable suggestion.

[MarxSchmarx]

Funny, comrade, because I thought the main problem with parpolity was its reliance on the council model.


To be fair, I don't want to de-emphasize other potential shortcomings (although I must admit I can't speak to how the reliance on the council model tips the scales against parpolity), but I do think its failure to depart very far from mid-17th century ideas of political organization betrays its failure to live up to its claim of developing innovative political arrangements for a new social order.



Honestly I think it lacks originality, creativity and is frankly snake oil. who cares?

My my, aren't we in a foul mood today.

There's no sense in getting hung up on it, but reading your response one way, sure, a lack of originality per se isn't too much of a problem. But it means two things. First, it is oversold and frankly of limited utility as an organizing tool or a basis for propaganda (much less getting at a "vision" the likes of Albert and Hahnel talk about). Second, why Shalom feels his time is best spent expounding endlessly and treading far along a well-treaded path is beyond me.

Reading your comment another way, if you don't care about what other posters think that's your problem. The OP asked for critiques. If you don't want to read other people's critiques, don't. It's not cool to be rude about it. This isn't chit-chat.



I think it is really just a rehashing of how an idealized, slightly more localized and democratized, version of the Anglo-Saxon political system is supposed to work.
sorry but you're wrong. the American political system isn't based on direct democracy, in case you hadn't noticed.

Who said anything about the American political system? Direct democracy and local control are recurrent themes in the political thought of Britain and its settler societies. The town-hall tradition, the myth of a tribal anglo-saxon democracy, and the comparative democracy (of white male settlers) in British colonies - these had a part in forming the American political system. Just because they didn't appear in the final draft doesn't mean they weren't around as ideas.

As far as America specifically, here's a 287 page tome linking the two:
http://theses.library.uwa.edu.au/adt-WU2007.0209/public/02whole.pdf

In any event, Shalom's understanding of the role of the courts and the law is just the separation of powers. His layer upon layer of delegates delegating delegates is basically just federalism (and a variation of this theme was abandoned as too undemocratic even by the US with the election of national senators by state legislatures). I'd go further and say that his view of why need delegates (which, I guess, aren't "representatives") in the first place, and the premises underlying having a small number of people (however chosen) "delegated" for broader areas, would probably find assent among the fiercest defenders of Parliament.

As far as the supposed virtues of the direct-democracy-versus-representative-democracy thing goes, if the record of ballot propositions in your state, California, is any indication, I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Shalom discusses a number of ways to ensure control over the delegates. I think one of the most valuable is his idea that if a decision by a regional or national congress of delegates is controversial or important, it could be referred back to the base assemblies at the neighborhood level for debate and discussion.

I think this is much better than the idea of "mandating" delegates. As Shalom points out, the purpose of a body of delegates is to deliberate, debate, and then come up with a decision or proposal. delegates will come from all over and may not be familiar with the considerations brought by other delegates. it's reasonable then to not have them bound in their votes by a "mandate" from the base assembly they represent, but allow them to use their judgment in coming to an agreement with the other delegates. if the people in the base assembly don't agree with the judgement of the delegate, they can always force the decision to be sent to the base assemblies for decision.

I think this idea of a right to have a matter sent to the base assemblies is an innovative and valuable suggestion.

How is "reasonable then to not have them bound" different from representation (which, as you know, I prefer over delegation)? Also, the "innovative and valuable" suggestion isn't very innovative.

The 1977 Soviet constitution mandated referenda when the two chambers of the Supreme Soviet couldn't agree to pass something. Paul Cockshott said that, ideally, the legislative-executive organ would discuss something big and let Handivote take care of the rest when it comes to key legislation (like war and taxes, but then decide by itself on everything else). This pretty much makes the base assemblies quite redundant except on local issues.

[syndicat]

Who said anything about the American political system?

well, there is no such entity as "the Anglo-Saxon political system" which you refer to but Britain and the various settler states it founded (USA, Canada, Australia) have certain features in common, both economic and political. USA's governmental structure is the more archaic of the lot, being based on an earlier variant of the British constitution, as in the 1600s-1700s (the U.S. Senate was inspired by the House of Lords).


Direct democracy and local control are recurrent themes in the political thought of Britain and its settler societies. The town-hall tradition, the myth of a tribal anglo-saxon democracy

well, frankly, this is bullshit. whoever talks about the ancient pre-Norman "Anglo-Saxon democracy"? and direct democracy has never played a significant role in the governmental systems of any of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries. the closest to this was the New England town meeting democracy, which for example, the colony of Rhode Island was originally founded on. But the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who were members of the wealthy elite, were totally opposed to direct democracy. As was Thomas Jefferson. So your reference to that manuscript on Jefferson is irrelevant.

government in the English speaking countries has always been based on "representative government", at least since the defeat of the "divine right of kings" (the beheading of Charles 1 dealt with that).

Moreover, direct democracy has played more of a role outside the "Anglo-Saxon" countries in revolutions, worker movements, and rebellions. There is the way that mass town assemblies were used in the Bolivian struggle against water privatization for example. Or the village assemblies at the base of the Zapatista movement. Or the dominant role of the assemblies in the collectivized villages of Aragon in the Spanish revolution, the crucial role assigned to the neighborhood and village assemblies in the program of the Spanish anarchosyndicalists of 1936, including the program of the Friends of Durruti group, the role of workers assemblies in the strike wave in Spain in the late '70s, the highly important role of the "section" assemblies in Paris in the 1789-93 revolution and again in the rebellion in Paris in 1871. village assemblies had been an integral part of peasant life in France until the French revolution (when the elite controlled national legislature banned them).

Direct democracy as an essential feature of the programmatic proposals of social anarchism because it is a necessary condition of authentic collective self-management. and without authentic worker self-management of industry and mass self-management of social affairs, there can be no working class liberation. the lack of interest in direct democracy is one of the features of orthodox Marxism that tends to lead to bureaucratic class systems. when you attack direct democracy, you're attacking one of the core features of social anarchism.

And in regard to the initiative process in California, the problems with it are not due to its being a form of direct democracy, but that it isn't enough of a form of direct democracy. the people here do not assemble in town hall meetings to discuss proposals. proponents, most often corporations and other wealthy interests, buy their way onto the ballot, hiring signature gatherers etc.

[syndicat]

The 1977 Soviet constitution mandated referenda when the two chambers of the Supreme Soviet couldn't agree to pass something.

were actual referenda carried out? i doubt it.

referring to the soviet constitution is a bit ridiculous since it was not carried out in practice.

moreover, taking that clause at face value it is completely different from Shalom's proposal. his proposal is that only a small number of petitioners would be required to force the proposal to be sent to the base assemblies for discusion and vote. this is not the same as people voting in the privacy of voting booths in a referendum.

i would suggest we could differentiate delegates from representatives in the following ways:

1. there are active base assemblies that meet regularly and have a sphere of decision-making authority and delegates must report back face to face at these assemblies and can be removed by the assembly.

2. the delegates are not professional politicians. they may be paid for time spent in affairs of the delegate bodies but at whatever their rate of remuneration is on their regular job.

3. when I (or Shalom) talk about delegates, we're talking about this in the context of a classless society. the working class has seized the means of production and workers are self-managing the various industries. there are not the huge disparities in income that exist in capitalist society.

4. base assemblies can send proposals to the delegate bodies directly. if people at the base are not satisfied with what the delegate body has decided, only a small number of signers on a petition would be required to force the measure to be sent to the base assemblies. the base assemblies would discuss the matter and vote on it.

5. term limits. people can only be a delegate for some limited period of time.

having 4. rather than an "imperative mandate" is a trade off. it allows genuine deliberation to take place at a delegate meeting. delegates from other communities are likely to bring considerations and issues not considered at other base assembly meetings. deliberation and working out an adjusted proposal would be needed in that case, and this can't be done if the delegate is bound to vote only for what the base assembly has approved. of course, one could say, "Well, the new issues and considerations can be brought back to the base assemblies for discussion in that case." But do we want to force this in all cases? There are likely to be a variety of cases where the delegates could come up with a proposal that is acceptable. so a modification of "imperative mandate" is to say that the base has easy access to forcing the issue back to the base for discussion and decision. if there isn't enough dissent from a proposal of the delegates to get a small number of signers to force it back to the base for decision, it seems that people are satisified with what their delegates came up with.

i talked with Shalom in person about his proposal. his disagreement over the social anarchist form of assemblyism is that he didn't like the idea of larger assemblies...with hundreds or even a couple thousand people. he wanted the meeting to be small enough that you could get to know everyone and their concerns. but i think larger assemblies are important so that people can get more of a sense of their collective power (as in worker assemblies in struggles), and I think that it is still possible to have people who speak to the various concerns and viewpoints able to express themselves in a larger meeting.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well syndicat I must say I am a little surprised at how passionately you're defending this parpolity thing. There are plenty of historical examples of effective liberatory, working class political organizations from Korea to Bolivia to, hell, even the United States, as you are certainly aware of. So whilst the appeal of this ahistorical pie in the sky scheme by this academic continues to escape me on its own merits, in light of the real organic institutions that you site (among others) which have precedent and are not created out of thin air but rely on the local, historically contingent realities that strike most people as plausible, it seems if anything it has even less appeal compared to such viable (and actually tried) alternatives.

But to each their own.



Who said anything about the American political system? well, there is no such entity as "the Anglo-Saxon political system" which you refer to but Britain and the various settler states it founded (USA, Canada, Australia) have certain features in common, both economic and political. USA's governmental structure is the more archaic of the lot, being based on an earlier variant of the British constitution, as in the 1600s-1700s (the U.S. Senate was inspired by the House of Lords).


Perhaps there is a difference of terminology, because the USA,UK, Canada Australia (new zealand south africa even ireland and barbados) are often referred to as "anglo-saxon" countries, of which the political system is a part of what distinguishes them from places like Norway, Laos or Turkey.



Direct democracy and local control are recurrent themes in the political thought of Britain and its settler societies. The town-hall tradition, the myth of a tribal anglo-saxon democracy well, frankly, this is bullshit. whoever talks about the ancient pre-Norman "Anglo-Saxon democracy"?

Thomas Jefferson.

I really, really don't want to derail this thread about Jefferson's ideology. Within the anarchist (and even leftist) movement, especially in America but also abroad, Jefferson has historically had a very strange place. Later on in your post you go on to say that "Jefferson opposed direct democracy, therefore his opinion is irrelevant". Fine. That is your opinion. Famous American leftists I respect give the guy a lot more credit than you seem to (Debs, Chomsky, Bookchin) and American leftists I respect also seem despise him (Zinn, Glen Ford) for good reason. Curiously his appeal on the right is very similar. I don't really care one way or the other, but insofar as Jefferson is widely regarded by Americans as a seminal figure in their understanding of democracy, it should behoove people curious about the origins of the American political system to engage Jefferson's views seriously.

And since Jefferson was primarily a leach off other's ideas, although I am no historian (or Jefferson scholar for that matter) I conjecture that his idealization of the "Anglo-Saxon" local democracy had sources outside his own imagination. I'm sure I could also dig up a few English romantics to this effect. That Australian dissertation (which I only skimmed) goes into it in more depth.



and direct democracy has never played a significant role in the governmental systems of any of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries.

Well apart from the new england exception you mention (which, coming from outside, strikes me as pretty deeply engrained in the American psyche). And also the Iroquois confederation, at least in America and parts of anglophone Canada. Also I haven't read his stuff, but people who know more about this stuff than I do (and even Wikipedia), note that Ray Billington's work for example shows how egalitarianism (again, at least among white male property owners) made the otherwise desolate "frontier" in Anglo-Saxon colonial countries so attractive.

So to the extent that America (and arguably Canada)'s founding mythology are largely derived from New England/frontier culture, egalitarianism and "direct democracy" has had a strong role.



But the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who were members of the wealthy elite, were totally opposed to direct democracy. As was Thomas Jefferson.

Madison and the federalists were. There seems to be some ambiguity about Jefferson and Franklin. But again, it's largely irrelevant to the issue at hand and I have no interest in derailing the thread at this point.



government in the English speaking countries has always been based on "representative government", at least since the defeat of the "divine right of kings" (the beheading of Charles 1 dealt with that).

Again as a matter of historical fact I'm not disagreeing, my point is that this is not how the myth of an anglo-saxon democracy is generally seen in the anglophone world (or at least in North America and Australia/NZ). I would be surprised if the average American (or white South African for that matter), for example, recognized the painting of the beheading of Charles I as more familiar than the Rockwell painting of a dude speaking up in a town hall or Mayor Quinby from the Simpsons wielding the gavel.



Moreover, direct democracy has played more of a role outside the "Anglo-Saxon" countries in revolutions, worker movements, and rebellions. There is the way that mass town assemblies were used in the Bolivian struggle against water privatization for example. Or the village assemblies at the base of the Zapatista movement. Or the dominant role of the assemblies in the collectivized villages of Aragon in the Spanish revolution, the crucial role assigned to the neighborhood and village assemblies in the program of the Spanish anarchosyndicalists of 1936, including the program of the Friends of Durruti group, the role of workers assemblies in the strike wave in Spain in the late '70s, the highly important role of the "section" assemblies in Paris in the 1789-93 revolution and again in the rebellion in Paris in 1871. village assemblies had been an integral part of peasant life in France until the French revolution (when the elite controlled national legislature banned them).


Look I don't disagree, I just don't think any of the people doing the heavy lifting here gave one ounce of shit about Shalom's parpolity. Which raises the question - why should we?



Direct democracy as an essential feature of the programmatic proposals of social anarchism because it is a necessary condition of authentic collective self-management. and without authentic worker self-management of industry and mass self-management of social affairs, there can be no working class liberation. the lack of interest in direct democracy is one of the features of orthodox Marxism that tends to lead to bureaucratic class systems. when you attack direct democracy, you're attacking one of the core features of social anarchism.


First things first. As a sociological/historical/empirical observation I agree. Self-proclaimed Marxists (with the possible exception of the de Leonists and a few others here and there) have generally placed too much trust in a technocratic/bureaucratic elite at the expense of everyone else. This in turn has led to the restoration of capitalism. We disagree about the details of how distinct this elite was from the bourgeosie, but in terms of the broad outline I don't contend this point.

In general this goes beyond a mere "lack of interest" in direct democracy, but betrays a fundamental hostility towards the ability of workers to liberate themselves among Bolshevists and Bernsteinists.

So the criticism that equates suspicion of direct democracy with bureaucratism in other leftist traditions is something of a strawman. The suspicion of direct democracy, among libertarian leftists, I'd argue is not a distrust of the workers to liberate themselves, but rather their suspicion of majority rule as having sufficient legitimacy to usurp individual (or for that matter local) autonomy. From this unease results the basic ambivalence to claims of "direct democracy". If I speak only for myself, well, then so be it. A stateless society based on the dictates of 50% + 1 doesn't strike me as particularly liberating human potential, but maybe that's just my residual Maoism.




And in regard to the initiative process in California, the problems with it are not due to its being a form of direct democracy, but that it isn't enough of a form of direct democracy. the people here do not assemble in town hall meetings to discuss proposals. proponents, most often corporations and other wealthy interests, buy their way onto the ballot, hiring signature gatherers etc.

AND WIN THE ASSENT OF VOTERS. Last I checked freedom of assembly is still the law of the land in California (or any other state with the "initiative" system). Nothing is stopping "the people" from organizing and meeting in, I don't know, the local unitarian church to express their distaste for something like water bonds, prohibition of civil liberties, maintaining property taxes against the rich, or opposing attacks on immigrants. The fact that voters would rather decide on how the rest of Californians should live based on TV commercials and what hired signature gatherers they run into in front of the Whole Foods Market tell them isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the benefits of having 50%+1 to impose their will on everyone else as a tool of working class liberation.

[blake 3:17]

The fact that voters would rather decide on how the rest of Californians should live based on TV commercials and what hired signature gatherers they run into in front of the Whole Foods Market tell them isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the benefits of having 50%+1 to impose their will on everyone else as a tool of working class liberation. I'm not too familiar with Shalom's ideas, but I thought his proposals had checks on that.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Could the OP put up a more substantive piece than the wikipedia entry?

I've been pretty interested in Michael Albert's thinking on a number of big questions. His memoirs present some really interesting histories and thoughtful reflections on how to actually make a democratic socialist society operate. I'm sometimes befuddled by him because of his anti-Leninismm a very interesting critique Leninists should think about. Excuse the ramcling. Bed time.

[syndicat]

Well syndicat I must say I am a little surprised at how passionately you're defending this parpolity thing.

I think i mentioned along the way various disagreements I have with some aspects of Shalom's proposal. I don't agree with the ahistorical way in which he discusses the question. This latter is a criticism I have of Michael Albert & Robin Hahnel's way of presenting their participatory economics proposal, which Shalom's "parpolity" is designed to fit with.

I was reacting to your dismissiveness and your disavowal of direct democracy. What I do defend passionately is that direct democracy, both in social movements and in the reorganization of society, is essential for working class liberation.

Jefferson was ambiguous and contradictory in many ways. This probably explains why various people on the left react differently to him. However, my main point was that he was not an advocate of direct democracy. He was an advocate for "representative government". He was less elitist than than many of the other leaders of the independence movement, that's about the best that I can say in his defense. He was racist, engaged in dishonest propaganda about alleged "indian atrocities" while speculating in land companies whose value depended upon seizure of the land of the indians.


note that Ray Billington's work for example shows how egalitarianism (again, at least among white male property owners) made the otherwise desolate "frontier" in Anglo-Saxon colonial countries so attractive.


this is very vague and does not imply direct democracy. direct democracy did occur in the tumultuous events of the American revolution. the struggle against British imperialism facilitated the insertion of plebeian sections of the populace...sailors, apprentices and other wage-workers, lower self-employed artisans, small often indebted farmers....to assert themselves into the making of history.

for example the militia formed to fight the British in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania was largely based on working farmers and the urban artisans and some radical intellectuals. They formed themselves into their own political organization, called the Associators, which invoked mass assemblies of residents in Philadelphia and forced the creation of a new state constitution which abolished property qualifications for voting and imprisonment for debt, gave the governor no veto, had no upper house, and required annual election of the legislature. the wealthy merchants and land speculators and slave owners in Pennsylvania had to organize strongly to overthrow this constitution in 1790.

When the elite of merchants and lawyers, importers and moneylenders in Boston tried to abolish the town meeting in favor of an elected mayor and city council, this was voted down in a whole series of town meetings because the elite made this attempt on numerous occasions over a series of years.

The town meetings in Massachusetts voted down not once but twice an elitist state constitution that would create an upper house with high property qualifications for voting, giving the wealthy elite a veto on all legislation. the last time they did this the elite controlled convention deceitfully declared the constitution passed even tho it had been defeated by a majority of the town meetings. these same towns in western Mass that were the center of opposition to the new oligarchic constitution were also the center of a number of farmer's rebellions such as Ely's rebellion and Shay's rebellion, which were based on self-assertion developed through participation in a military struggle, as members of popular militia forces.

so direct democracy played a role like this in the American revolution. the framers of the U.S. constitution were very fearful of this trend towards increasing assertion by plebeian farmer and artisan elements, and their solution was a centralized federal state that would be divorced from popular control. they insisted on a US Senate modeled on the British House of Lords, as a veto of the wealthier people on any popular movements that threatened their interests.

the beheading of Charles I was part of the English revolution. the English revolution led to aggressive assertion of rights of the poor and plebeian elements of England to political and legal rights, demanding abolition of the property qualification for voting (which had been set in place in the 1400s). The demands and ideas rasied by the Levellers...the advocates for democratization...were also popularly asserted in the American revolutiion, for example, by the town meetings in Massachusetts at the time of the struggle over the first state constitution. This is not surprising given that the New Model Army, which the Leveller movement grew out of, was an expression of Puritan revolt against the autocratic royalist regime in England, and also against hierarchical church governance as well. the town meetings in New England were influenced by the Congregationalist concept of church self-governance by the members.

now, to come to the main point, i said:

Direct democracy as an essential feature of the programmatic proposals of social anarchism because it is a necessary condition of authentic collective self-management. and without authentic worker self-management of industry and mass self-management of social affairs, there can be no working class liberation. the lack of interest in direct democracy is one of the features of orthodox Marxism that tends to lead to bureaucratic class systems. when you attack direct democracy, you're attacking one of the core features of social anarchism.

and you reply:


First things first. As a sociological/historical/empirical observation I agree. Self-proclaimed Marxists (with the possible exception of the de Leonists and a few others here and there) have generally placed too much trust in a technocratic/bureaucratic elite at the expense of everyone else. This in turn has led to the restoration of capitalism. We disagree about the details of how distinct this elite was from the bourgeosie, but in terms of the broad outline I don't contend this point.

In general this goes beyond a mere "lack of interest" in direct democracy, but betrays a fundamental hostility towards the ability of workers to liberate themselves among Bolshevists and Bernsteinists.


I would basically agree. As Sam Farber says in "Before Stalinism", it was a common feature of Menshevism and Bolshevism that they were not interested in, not concerted about, developing direct participation by working people in the governing of their workplaces and their daily lives in general, but were focused on control over the central state.


The suspicion of direct democracy, among libertarian leftists, I'd argue is not a distrust of the workers to liberate themselves, but rather their suspicion of majority rule as having sufficient legitimacy to usurp individual (or for that matter local) autonomy. From this unease results the basic ambivalence to claims of "direct democracy". If I speak only for myself, well, then so be it. A stateless society based on the dictates of 50% + 1 doesn't strike me as particularly liberating human potential, but maybe that's just my residual Maoism.


Libertarian socialists are not "suspicious of direct democracy." On the contrary, direct democracy is essential to libertarian socialism.

When you talk about people who hold "suspicion of majority rule as having sufficient legitimacy to usurp individual autonomy", you're talking about individualists. But individualism that opposes democracy is a hopelessly implausible viewpoint.

We can say that in an assembly people must be free to express their viewpoints...including their disagreements. We can try to gain a consensus but in large and diverse settings disagreement is likely to persist. the point to majority rule for making a decision in such a case is that the alternative is minority rule.

And your comments about referenda in California, under conditions where the working class do not have control over the media or decision-making in general, in the context of a highly unequal class society, simply have no bearing on direct democracy as advocated by libertarian socialists.

people could gather in meetings but they have no decision-making authority over approval of legislation or other aspects of the workings of the state apparatus here. the kinds of assemblies that would be more relevant, from a libertarian socialist point of view, would be meetings of workers in unions, or in social movements where people are deciding on some course of action or the development of some movement, as part of the struggle against the employers, landlords, state authority. this is also relevant to the state initiatives because these social movement and labor organizations are a means to popular education of working people about state propositions on the ballot. but which propositions get on the ballot largely depends upon who has money to hire signature gatherers. and who wins in the election depends a lot of how much money you have for advertising.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So the criticism that equates suspicion of direct democracy with bureaucratism in other leftist traditions is something of a strawman. The suspicion of direct democracy, among libertarian leftists, I'd argue is not a distrust of the workers to liberate themselves, but rather their suspicion of majority rule as having sufficient legitimacy to usurp individual (or for that matter local) autonomy. From this unease results the basic ambivalence to claims of "direct democracy". If I speak only for myself, well, then so be it. A stateless society based on the dictates of 50% + 1 doesn't strike me as particularly liberating human potential, but maybe that's just my residual Maoism.

Direct democracy should not be seen as a panacea, comrade. I'm sure I've stressed this before, but this subject pales in comparison to the real crux behind how Athenian democracy worked for so long. I too don't like the idea of recalling "delegates" or "representatives" simply because of mob prejudices against their having unorthodox hairstyles and what not.

[syndicat]

Direct democracy should not be seen as a panacea, comrade.

nobody claims it's a panacea. that's a strawman. the issue is whether it is necessary. a flaw in orthodox Marxism is that it never emphasized it. state socialism tended to think in terms of representative government.

[MarxSchmarx]

To be sure, I don't think any of us are claiming that direct democracy does not have its virtues, or that it doesn't have its limitations. As you note, syndicat,


the issue is whether it is necessary.

On some level I agree this is the main question. But I'd take it a step further - it's about in which spheres of life it is necessary.




When you talk about people who hold "suspicion of majority rule as having sufficient legitimacy to usurp individual autonomy", you're talking about individualists. But individualism that opposes democracy is a hopelessly implausible viewpoint.

Often the defense of applying direct democracy to all things is that the alternatives are much worse from an ethical point of view, and that consensus is worse from a practical point of view. So direct democracy emerges as the last man standing.

But this is simply not the case. There are certain things, like the hairstyle example DNZ gives, the direct democracy should stay the hell away from. I'm inclined to suggest that within the libertarian socialist movement, this sphere has largely been restricted to economic activity. As Kropotkin (who doesn't have much credence as an orthodox Marxist) said, the goal of an stateless polity should be to have people


only agree as to some advantageous method of common work, and are free otherwise to live in their own way. Far from being a wacko individualist view point, this insight that direct democracy be basically restricted to economic activity (shared by other less-than-individualist libertarian socialists) informs a lot of the anarchist FAQ's discussion of this very question:

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci56

and the very limited role of direct democracy in this view can be summarized as:


Direct democracy in anarchist theory is purely concerned with common resources and their use and management.

Thus while you are correct, Syndicat, that:



Direct democracy should not be seen as a panacea, comrade. nobody claims it's a panacea. that's a strawman.

JR goes on to point out that delegates could just as readily impose capricious mob rule as representatives under parliament. But I think his point is rather that to apply direct democracy outside of economics to envision a libertarian society, one must first make a convincing case how one deals with problems like the tyranny of the majority over things like hair style. And appealing to the virtues of direct democracy is not sufficient to this end.

To illustrate this, his example of hair styles shows that there must be some limitations on direct democracy and its capacity to run a society, and this raises the question of whether direct democracy is necessary outside the economic sphere of life.

Now, back to the original question of parpolity. Outside of what is usually considered to be economic activity, direct democracy is problematic, and yes, this is a rather mainstream view among the libertarian left, as I've hopefully argued above.

Direct democracy of a sort already exists in the parecon literature. To impose direct democracy in other areas of life besides economic ones should only be seen as preferable to imposing authoritarian rule in other areas of life. Leaving individuals to conduct their own affairs which don't impact economic arrangements to do basically as they please without having to deal with direct democracy is not a fringe individualist view but within the mainstream of left libertarianism. To the extent that Shalom wishes to extend direct democracy beyond their historically recognized (at least according to the libertarian left) domain of applicability (why else would he pursue a sphere of life that parecon has already basically covered?), he (and his supporters) should expect considerable and justified skepticism from the libertarian left. And appeals to direct democracy, without specifying what domains they are necessary in (for example, to solve economic problems), are unpursuasive in light of concerns like JR raises (about hair styles and suchwhat), and fail to address the concerns of leftists whose goal is human liberation.

[syndicat]

Outside of what is usually considered to be economic activity, direct democracy is problematic, and yes, this is a rather mainstream view among the libertarian left, as I've hopefully argued above.


you've "shown" no such thing. one measly cherry picked quote from Kropotkin...who, by the way, says things in one place that are not consistent with what he says elsehwere...does no such thing.

let's consider the program of the spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement in 1936....the one revolution where anarchism played a major role. their "libertarian communist" program envisioned two kinds of base institutions. workers assemblies in workplaces, and assemblies of residents in villages and urban neighborhoods. in larger cities they envisioned these neighborhood assemblies electing delegates to some larger citywide delegate body. this was called "free municipality". this was part of the program of the CNT adopted at Zaragoza in May 1936 and is repeated in the program of the Friends of Durruti group in "Towards a new revolution."

they actually did construct some "free municipalities" in villages in Aragon. in these cases they overthrew the old town council and invoked an assembly of all the residents, which elected a revolutionary committee, that is, an administrative committee. but the assemblies continued to meet.

a governance structure in a society is inevitable. so, if a society is to be based on generalized self-managment...and this is the goal of social anarchism....then this has to occur through the various spheres of society, that is, in the institutions that are set up for control in these spheres.

governance includes making the basic rules or laws. it includes adjudicating disputes and accusations of criminal conduct. and enforcement of the laws.

but self-management also includes individual self-management over one's personal life. here it is a question of recognizing there is a sphere of decisions about the life activity of each person that are that person's business, which it is appropriate for them to decide on their own. this individual self-management is individual liberty. but recognizing a sphere of individual liberty is consistent with recognizing that there are many, many decisions that affect or govern multiple people and inevitably social in their effects or scope. so the question of governance is about these social decisions.

when hahnel & albert, in their participatory economics model, talk about "consumer councils," this is too abstract. that's because the bodies in question are in fact the same as the base governance bodies for shalom.

goverance of our social consumption requests can't be so easily separated from the more general question of power in society or governance of society. among the issues a socialist society has to decide is the scope of goods and services to be provided through social provision, such as free health care and free education. within the participatory planning framework, they do not do this by simply issuing orders. what they...the community as a community of residents...has the right to self-manage is their own consumption. when a community decides it wants a certain extensive set of curricula offered at various levels of education or a certain menu of health care services provided, it is making a decision about its consumption.

this, then, is supposed to be negotiated with the workers who will do the work. this is why there is a dual goverance structure, separate assemblies/councils for workers and for communities/consumers.

this is the same dual governance structure as envisioned in the CNT program of 1936. the CNT movement had also envisioned some form of grassroots social planning.

but the free municipalities were to ultimately have control over the political functions of society, and so in fact, when you add shalom's proposal unto participatory economics in the way I've suggested, it ends up being rather similar to the CNT program, it's just that the language is different.

the issue of freedom of the individual comes down to the way that sphere of individual deicision-making and social decision-making is divided. in other words, what it appropriate for the individual to decide for herself? within the context of the participatory economics/parpolity framework this is left as an open question.

moreover, to say that governance should be restricted to the "economic" is, well, too economistic. there are issues related to the various forms of oppression that are not simply economic and cannot be reduced to the economic, but they are social and it's not adequate to take an individualistic laissez faire posture towards them. racism, patriarchy, homophobia are not reducible to economics.

if you fear "mob rule" then you really don't want to see the working itself, collectively, gain control over its destiny.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But this is simply not the case. There are certain things, like the hairstyle example DNZ gives, the direct democracy should stay the hell away from.

JR goes on to point out that delegates could just as readily impose capricious mob rule as representatives under parliament

It's not the delegates, but mob rule imposed upon them based on popular hairstyle prejudices. Those delegates with bad hairstyles could be easily recalled, while representatives wouldn't. Now that delegation can be easily discredited, the question is: What's the best form of workers representation, within and outside the framework of party-movements? [Hence how Athenian democracy lasted so long with random selections]

[MarxSchmarx]

let's consider the program of the spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement in 1936....the one revolution where anarchism played a major role. their "libertarian communist" program envisioned two kinds of base institutions. workers assemblies in workplaces, and assemblies of residents in villages and urban neighborhoods. in larger cities they envisioned these neighborhood assemblies electing delegates to some larger citywide delegate body. this was called "free municipality". this was part of the program of the CNT adopted at Zaragoza in May 1936 and is repeated in the program of the Friends of Durruti group in "Towards a new revolution."

they actually did construct some "free municipalities" in villages in Aragon. in these cases they overthrew the old town council and invoked an assembly of all the residents, which elected a revolutionary committee, that is, an administrative committee. but the assemblies continued to meet


That was also a time of war - it's far from obvious that such structures would be needed after the bourgeoisie is defeated.

Further, the CNT-FAI readily carried out executions for things as relatively minor as banditry and corruption. And it worked, at least for a time, in controlling the people they let out of jail in the first place. Does that mean that libertarian socialists should take a similar approach henceforth?

The point is that there was a lot that happened in Spain that was good, but also a lot that was historically and culturally contingent. Why should the rest of the world (or the anarchist movement for that matter) forever be tied to the methods of a failed revolution 80 years ago on the periphery of Europe?




governance includes making the basic rules or laws. it includes adjudicating disputes and accusations of criminal conduct. and enforcement of the laws.


but self-management also includes individual self-management over one's personal life. here it is a question of recognizing there is a sphere of decisions about the life activity of each person that are that person's business, which it is appropriate for them to decide on their own. this individual self-management is individual liberty. but recognizing a sphere of individual liberty is consistent with recognizing that there are many, many decisions that affect or govern multiple people and inevitably social in their effects or scope. so the question of governance is about these social decisions.


Sounds like "we are endowed with inalienable rights, among which are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, men form governments" etc.... to me.

Self management need not take exclusively the form of the rule of 50%+1. Custom, adjudication by previously agreed upon mediators, developing social mores and for that matter changing "laws" by consensus or mutual agreements based on informed consent are all just as much a part of self management.




when hahnel & albert, in their participatory economics model, talk about "consumer councils," this is too abstract. that's because the bodies in question are in fact the same as the base governance bodies for shalom.

goverance of our social consumption requests can't be so easily separated from the more general question of power in society or governance of society. among the issues a socialist society has to decide is the scope of goods and services to be provided through social provision, such as free health care and free education. within the participatory planning framework, they do not do this by simply issuing orders. what they...the community as a community of residents...has the right to self-manage is their own consumption. when a community decides it wants a certain extensive set of curricula offered at various levels of education or a certain menu of health care services provided, it is making a decision about its consumption.
this, then, is supposed to be negotiated with the workers who will do the work.


this is why there is a dual goverance structure, separate assemblies/councils for workers and for communities/consumers.


But parecon already talks about this, namely, consumers/residents having councils the way workers do. So Shalom and this parpolity stuff must be getting at more than merely deciding basically what to buy. In terms of delimiting what is appropriately the sphere of the personal etc... they don't address it.




there are issues related to the various forms of oppression that are not simply economic and cannot be reduced to the economic, but they are social and it's not adequate to take an individualistic laissez faire posture towards them. racism, patriarchy, homophobia are not reducible to economics.


Whoever said they were? Moreover, if you feel the iron heel of the state (or free city council or whatever) is what is required to wipe these kinds of reactionary vestiges out then frankly the leninists and their gulags do a much better job at it. For as they are fond of saying, the anarchists have not one successful revolt to their name.



if you fear "mob rule" then you really don't want to see the working itself, collectively, gain control over its destiny.

I learned something new about myself today. I didn't realize not wanting every Tom Dick and Harry telling me I have to have a pony tail whether I want to or not was denying the working class control over its destiny.

[syndicat]

That was also a time of war - it's far from obvious that such structures would be needed after the bourgeoisie is defeated.

This had been the social anarchist program for many years before that civil war. If anything, the war tended to make it difficult to implement the full program of the anarcho-syndicalists. this is why assemblies in workplaces tended to be widespread, but "free municipalities" were rare.



Further, the CNT-FAI readily carried out executions for things as relatively minor as banditry and corruption. And it worked, at least for a time, in controlling the people they let out of jail in the first place. Does that mean that libertarian socialists should take a similar approach henceforth?

Well, they did not carry out arbitrary executions. They proposed popular tribunals to try people. There were individual actions in the early days of the revolution where small groups of people, acting on their own and without sanction of the organization, engaged in executions, but these were not for minor infractions like robbery. These were killings of hated employers, certain notorious cops, church leaders. But the CNT-FAI was opposed to these killings. They threatened at one point they would try people who did this. And in fact they did. They tried and executed a leader of the construction union for unauthorized killings.

When Garcia Oliver became minister of justice, one of his first acts was to appoint an anarchist (Melchior Rodriguez) as head of the prisons who would put an end to arbritary executions of prisoners.



The point is that there was a lot that happened in Spain that was good, but also a lot that was historically and culturally contingent. Why should the rest of the world (or the anarchist movement for that matter) forever be tied to the methods of a failed revolution 80 years ago on the periphery of Europe?


you're wrong when you say that the advocacy of direct democracy is "historically and culturally contingent" for social anarchism. On the contrary, it is central to the whole project. moreover, there is no other way for the population to be authentically self-governing otherwise.

direct democracy has also shown in many situations other than those fomented by anarchists. the Zapatista movement in Chiapas has a system local governance, with several levels of delegate councils, which are all supposed to be accountable to village assemblies. the struggle against water privatization in Cochabamba in Bolivia was waged through mass resident assemblies, originally organized by some labor leaders.


Self management need not take exclusively the form of the rule of 50%+1. Custom, adjudication by previously agreed upon mediators, developing social mores and for that matter changing "laws" by consensus or mutual agreements based on informed consent are all just as much a part of self management.


Adjudication is a particular social function. Shalom does not propose that there is no separate judicial system and we just try to present the disputes and accusations to the general assemblies of the community. You're confusing different things.

I think trying to reach consensus is important. It's important in struggles where unity makes for greater strength. But consensus cannot always be achieved and that's when voting comes into play as the democratic method of decision. And to propose super-majorities is to propose minority rule. that said, the specific rules adopted by a group of workers or a community for a system of direct democracy may differ from place to place. I know that Michael Albert holds that different levels of consensus are appropriate for different situations.


But parecon already talks about this, namely, consumers/residents having councils the way workers do. So Shalom and this parpolity stuff must be getting at more than merely deciding basically what to buy. In terms of delimiting what is appropriately the sphere of the personal etc... they don't address it.


I see no reason to separate the goverance bodies of a neighborhood...it's general assembly and delegates, committee system...from the body where collective consumption and social budgets are decided. it makes no sense to separate them. the general assemblies that do "participatory budgeting" in some Brazilian cities try to indicate priorities for what is in fact a form of public consuption, such as parks, social services. but they exist as part of the governmental system, providing input for the bottom level of the state.

as to not delimiting the sphere of individual decisions, yes, they don't discuss where the dividing line is. you're just repeating what i already said.


Whoever said they were? Moreover, if you feel the iron heel of the state (or free city council or whatever) is what is required to wipe these kinds of reactionary vestiges out then frankly the leninists and their gulags do a much better job at it. For as they are fond of saying, the anarchists have not one successful revolt to their name.


you miss the point. there are various questions of policy for communities or society that are not reducible to the economic. for example, is the militia to be based on conscription or volunteers?


I learned something new about myself today. I didn't realize not wanting every Tom Dick and Harry telling me I have to have a pony tail whether I want to or not was denying the working class control over its destiny.

this is a strawman fallacy. I already said there is an area where individuals have legitimate self-management over their own lives, apart from the collective. thus i never said there are no limits to what should be decided collectively by an assembly, or a community or workplace organization.

moreover, the working class is highly diverse. part of the process of class formation is the development of an alliance between the various subgroups that make up the working class. and this can only occur based on dialogue among groups whose concerns, injuries, background, etc is different. a process of dialogue and increasing solidarity is necessary to break down various forms of intolerance such as racism and many others. in a working class movement that is built on opposition to arbitrary authority exercized by bosses and other authorities over us, it becomes more likely that tolerance for individual personal decisions to be developed. consider for example an islamic woman's wearing of the hajib by choice. to the extent there is an alliance developed in which muslim workers are an integral part, this prejudice is less likely.

[MarxSchmarx]

This thread's been derailed enough, so syndicat you can have the last word. So let me respond and I guess you can say your piece but I don't want to derail it further.



Further, the CNT-FAI readily carried out executions for things as relatively minor as banditry and corruption. And it worked, at least for a time, in controlling the people they let out of jail in the first place. Does that mean that libertarian socialists should take a similar approach henceforth?
Well, they did not carry out arbitrary executions. They proposed popular tribunals to try people. There were individual actions in the early days of the revolution where small groups of people, acting on their own and without sanction of the organization, engaged in executions, but these were not for minor infractions like robbery. These were killings of hated employers, certain notorious cops, church leaders. But the CNT-FAI was opposed to these killings. They threatened at one point they would try people who did this. And in fact they did. They tried and executed a leader of the construction union for unauthorized killings.

When Garcia Oliver became minister of justice, one of his first acts was to appoint an anarchist (Melchior Rodriguez) as head of the prisons who would put an end to arbritary executions of prisoners.

Well, I think this is a red herring. My point wasn't that Spanish anarchist's were consistent in their policy on what crimes merited the death penalty (and the evidence is that they were). Rather it was that just because the CNT-FAI chose one path doesn't mean contemporary libertarian socialists should choose the same path. I was illustrating how executions were considered an acceptable part of an "anarchist polity" back in Civil War Spain (and I guess before) and that this is evidence of historical contingency of the CNT-FAI experiment. Today, most libertarian socialists (I would certainly hope) would balk at retaining the death penalty at all. It's worth pointing out also that many of the arguments that exist against capital punishment today were known to most activists and organizers back then, and the fact that they nevertheless went along with any executions at all suggests that they had a genuinely different world-view than the mainstream of the liberatrian left today. Thus to argue that we should mimic their political stance, because it was "actually implemented", would entail that we should also support the death penalty, because this was something that was part of "actually existing libertarianism". Which is fine, but I don't think the majority of the libertarian left would be comfortable with that.

But, I'm just repeating myself, for as I already said:
The point is that there was a lot that happened in Spain that was good, but also a lot that was historically and culturally contingent. Why should the rest of the world (or the anarchist movement for that matter) forever be tied to the methods of a failed revolution 80 years ago on the periphery of Europe?
As regards your response that:


you're wrong when you say that the advocacy of direct democracy is "historically and culturally contingent" for social anarchism. On the contrary, it is central to the whole project. moreover, there is no other way for the population to be authentically self-governing otherwise.

direct democracy has also shown in many situations other than those fomented by anarchists. the Zapatista movement in Chiapas has a system local governance, with several levels of delegate councils, which are all supposed to be accountable to village assemblies. the struggle against water privatization in Cochabamba in Bolivia was waged through mass resident assemblies, originally organized by some labor leaders.


First of all, appealing to more examples doesn't make something right. Second, all of these (including the CNT-FAI) have in common is that they were implemented in times of intense military struggle for survivorship, social upheaval, and in predominantly agricultural societies (not to mention Catholic and having legacy of aristocratic, imperial spanish rule - which is true of Catalonia as well as Bolivia).

While I might be willing to overlook the second point, the argument you advance has too many holes in it even still. For all their differences, the material circumstances and the government bureaucracy Mayan peasants in Chiapas have had to deal with are not much better, or much different than, the peasants of extremadura 70 years ago. Further, just showing that within the same century libertarian socialist movements of agrarian regions in primarily industrialized societies (or a few industrial centers that rely on mining or manufacturing) have converged on similar social organizations doesn't do much to help the argument that these forms of political organization are not economically, historically, or socially contingent. Finally, I am rather skeptical that these movements are entirely "independent" of the CNT-FAI and other historical precedents. Subcomandante Marcos, to give just one example, I am sure, has more than a vague knowledge that Spain had a civil war in the 1930s, and that socialists of all stripes experimented with their visions. Admittedly I know less about the struggles in Cochabamba, but I would be surprised if there was not a single person there who was aware of what the CNT-FAI were, for example.



Self management need not take exclusively the form of the rule of 50%+1. Custom, adjudication by previously agreed upon mediators, developing social mores and for that matter changing "laws" by consensus or mutual agreements based on informed consent are all just as much a part of self management.
Adjudication is a particular social function.

As regards adjudication, I only commented on that because you brought it up as one of the many social needs, apart from economic concerns, that need to be settled. My point was that adjudication by majority rule is not always justified and sometimes even problematic - even the bourgeoisie recognize this when they require a unanimous jury verdict!





But parecon already talks about this, namely, consumers/residents having councils the way workers do. So Shalom and this parpolity stuff must be getting at more than merely deciding basically what to buy. In terms of delimiting what is appropriately the sphere of the personal etc... they don't address it.
I see no reason to separate the goverance bodies of a neighborhood...it's general assembly and delegates, committee system...from the body where collective consumption and social budgets are decided. it makes no sense to separate them. the general assemblies that do "participatory budgeting" in some Brazilian cities try to indicate priorities for what is in fact a form of public consuption, such as parks, social services. but they exist as part of the governmental system, providing input for the bottom level of the state.


These are just economic decisions about basically what to buy (i.e., consumption), which has been my point all along. To call them somehow "policy making bodies" that warrant anything outside the traditional parecon lexicon is unnecessary. Which gets back to my original point that this parpolity stuff is largely redundant, at best.




Whoever said they were? Moreover, if you feel the iron heel of the state (or free city council or whatever) is what is required to wipe these kinds of reactionary vestiges out then frankly the leninists and their gulags do a much better job at it. For as they are fond of saying, the anarchists have not one successful revolt to their name.
...
there are various questions of policy for communities or society that are not reducible to the economic. for example, is the militia to be based on conscription or volunteers?



That you take conscription seriously at all I think demonstrates the fundamental gulf between your worldview and the prevailing sentiment of the libertarian left.




I learned something new about myself today. I didn't realize not wanting every Tom Dick and Harry telling me I have to have a pony tail whether I want to or not was denying the working class control over its destiny.
this is a strawman fallacy. I already said there is an area where individuals have legitimate self-management over their own lives, apart from the collective. thus i never said there are no limits to what should be decided collectively by an assembly, or a community or workplace organization.

moreover, the working class is highly diverse. part of the process of class formation is the development of an alliance between the various subgroups that make up the working class. and this can only occur based on dialogue among groups whose concerns, injuries, background, etc is different. a process of dialogue and increasing solidarity is necessary to break down various forms of intolerance such as racism and many others. in a working class movement that is built on opposition to arbitrary authority exercized by bosses and other authorities over us, it becomes more likely that tolerance for individual personal decisions to be developed. consider for example an islamic woman's wearing of the hajib by choice. to the extent there is an alliance developed in which muslim workers are an integral part, this prejudice is less likely.

I'm sorry, but you have not in all that given me any indication that the question of political organization and concerns about individual rights versus social obligations etc... that parpolity is supposed to help answer is any different from the prevailing bourgeois, liberal tradition. The problem of finding the right balance between majority opinion and individual rights has already been articulated in one form or another within the tradition anglo-saxon political thought - over two hundred years ago!

It's a difference of opinion, but I do not think a liberatory political philosophy can be constructed by simply restating and repackaging the prevailing liberal tradition. These orthodoxies derive from the history anglo-american political thought, and whether one wishes to call the decision makers "representatives" or "delegates" is not a qualitative difference, but rather merely one of degree. A truly libertarian form of social organization that addresses questions beyond the merely economic cannot be beholden to a somehow more "democratic" "gentler" bourgeois state. If that is all that the goal is, then you'd get far more mileage out of defending that tradition (including it's comparatively more democratic defenders like Jefferson, Dewey, and Rawls) than the likes of Shalom, or for that matter insisting on ossifying the tradition of libertarian socialism to be beholden to relatively progressive developments in arguably quite semi-feudal conditions.

[syndicat]

Well, I think this is a red herring. My point wasn't that Spanish anarchist's were consistent in their policy on what crimes merited the death penalty (and the evidence is that they were). Rather it was that just because the CNT-FAI chose one path doesn't mean contemporary libertarian socialists should choose the same path. I was illustrating how executions were considered an acceptable part of an "anarchist polity" back in Civil War Spain (and I guess before) and that this is evidence of historical contingency of the CNT-FAI experiment. Today, most libertarian socialists (I would certainly hope) would balk at retaining the death penalty at all. It's worth pointing out also that many of the arguments that exist against capital punishment today were known to most activists and organizers back then, and the fact that they nevertheless went along with any executions at all suggests that they had a genuinely different world-view than the mainstream of the liberatrian left today. Thus to argue that we should mimic their political stance, because it was "actually implemented", would entail that we should also support the death penalty, because this was something that was part of "actually existing libertarianism". Which is fine, but I don't think the majority of the libertarian left would be comfortable with that.


They were in a life or death situation. The elite were out to exterminate them. The fascists made this quite clear when they captured towns. A commmittee would be formed of a priest, landowner, Falange member, army officer, and they'd collect the "subversives" list from the police files and systematically externinate everyone on the list plus people fingered by contacts in their elite class circle.

Spanish anarchists back then most certainly did NOT advocate capital punishment as something that would persist in a libertarian socialist society. They didn't even advocate continued existence of prisons.


First of all, appealing to more examples doesn't make something right. Second, all of these (including the CNT-FAI) have in common is that they were implemented in times of intense military struggle for survivorship, social upheaval, and in predominantly agricultural societies (not to mention Catholic and having legacy of aristocratic, imperial spanish rule - which is true of Catalonia as well as Bolivia).


i'm afraid you show a lack of familiarity with anarcho-syndicalism. the program of the CNT called explicitly for basing the governance system of the new Iberia on the direct democracy of assemblies, what they called "free municipalities". thus the towns in Aragon where the CNT village assemblies took over what they did was to replace the town council with a general assembly and its elected commmittee.

I can't see how collective self-management of industry for example can take place without general assemblies. Thus in all the various industries the CNT took over, it was always the worker assembly that was the base authority for decision-making.

As to Subcommandante Marcos and the other leaders of the EZLN, they came from a Maoist background. their adoption of a from below, assembly based set of principles was something they learned and their ideology evolved accordingly. I think it is doubtful in the extreme to attribute this to anarcho-syndicalist influence.


It's a difference of opinion, but I do not think a liberatory political philosophy can be constructed by simply restating and repackaging the prevailing liberal tradition.

I never said that it could be, nor does Shalom. this is another of your repeated strawman arguments. the basis for my advocacy of the direct democracy of general assemblies is that this is a necessary condition for authentic self-management.

nor is the advocacy of direct democracy a part of the "Ango-Saxon liberal tradition." to the contrary, that tradition was always based on representative government from Locke to the present day.