Forward Union
24th June 2006, 16:27
The number of websites conatinins material that proclaims anarchists desire direct democracy came as some suprise to us while researching this critique [Of Democracy and majority rule] Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between indeviduals. The absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies and an unquestionable universal right to self determination. Those beliefs lead to many different visions of the world, but when genuinly held, they will never lead to democracy. Even quote "Direct democracy" demands surrender to the status quo and places a hierachy of group over indevidual. Thus seperating us from our desires ...any who would give up these principals should also give up the name "Anarchist", perhaps in favour of "libertarian" - Taken from an online radio station (audio anarchy)
What do the anarchists here think of this attack on Direct Democracy?
I guess I disagree with the statements expressed here. While the anarchist society has no coercive decision-making process, I can't help but feel that direct democracy is a successful and appropriate model for the free society.
It's a decision and planning model. Direct democracy can help coordinate larger projects that need more than simple participation. Particularly corespondence with other groups. I've heard the delegate-representation model espoused by other anarchists before and that can't function without people being able to remove the delegate at will, ie direct democracy.
Particularly as Jesus Christ! pointed out, democracy in the workplace is very important. In a structure where everyone works on their small piece of the larger whole, it's important to be able to coordinate plans and decide where the shop is headed.
I've alway been impressed with the anarchist adherence to practical models over theoretical ones. This speaker doesn't seem to appreciate the practical method.
Comrade-Z
24th June 2006, 23:56
"Direct democracy" demands surrender to the status quo and places a hierachy of group over indevidual.
Hardly. If, after a democratic vote, someone is still really dissatisfied with the outcome, he/she can voluntarily dis-associate from that enterprise and go work somewhere else, for instance.
If we can't use direct democracy, how else are we supposed to coordinate parallel action? Oh, I guess we aren't. We're supposed to function in a complete social bubble.
This is just more of that "post-left anarchy" bullshit.
apathy maybe
28th June 2006, 10:39
In my opinion anarchism means no oppression, neither by a minority against a majority, nor by a majority against a minority. The problem with "democracy" is that it permits the second.
However, if no one is forced to comply with the wishes of the majority then "democracy" is one good way of determining outcomes.
Originally posted by Comrade-Z+--> (Comrade-Z)Hardly. If, after a democratic vote, someone is still really dissatisfied with the outcome, he/she can voluntarily dis-associate from that enterprise and go work somewhere else, for instance.[/b]
Exactly. No one would be forced to do anything.
Originally posted by Comrade-
[email protected]
If we can't use direct democracy, how else are we supposed to coordinate parallel action? Oh, I guess we aren't. We're supposed to function in a complete social bubble.
Depending on your definition of democracy. Does it include consensus? Besides if people aren't being forced to participate in things that they do not wish to participate in, then you could use voting and discussion to coordinate things.
Another way would simply for people to say what they are thinking of doing, others might join in if they like the idea. Voting by action rather then voices.
Janus
I remember having this type of discussion with another member here who said similar things. I don't see how direct democracy could create any true oppression as votes will change depending on the issue so no one could gain power and truly oppress another group.Actually the votes could easily consistently go against a certain small group. It would only be oppressive if that group (or individual) had no way of disassociating with the bigger group or no way to not participate in an action.
Originally posted by Audio Anarchy+--> (Audio Anarchy) Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between indeviduals. The absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies and an unquestionable universal right to self determination.[/b]
Erroneous. Erroneous on all counts.
Since people don't exist as pie-in-the-sky ideals, conflicts will, of course, emerge. Some conflicts (whether personal conflicts or conflicts of the "what should we, as a group, do in response to the situation at hand?" breed) will emerge. At times, these conflicts require the "mediation" (ie: participation) of entire groups (communities, workplaces, whatever).
So that's one.
There would not, of course, be any absence of "coercive forces" in society. Communities would mandate coercion to be used in dealing with, say, seriaEven quote "Direct democracy" demands surrender to the status quo and places a hierachy of group over indevidual. Thus seperating us from our desires ...any who would give up these principals should also give up the name "Anarchist", perhaps in favour of "libertarian"l rapists (heh, that can of worms again).
Two down.
"Universal self-determination" is not only damn near impossible, it's quite undesirable. I don't want people to have the "universal right" to "determine" to indoctrinate their kids with superstition. I don't want anybody to have the "universal right" to "determine" that they should light fires in the middle of the street. I don't want anybody to have the "universal right" to "determine" that they should shit on the floor of a movie theatre.
Of course, none of this stuff would be tolerated in an anarchist society, so we're good.
Even quote "Direct democracy" demands surrender to the status quo and places a hierachy of group over indevidual. Thus seperating us from our desires ...any who would give up these principals should also give up the name "Anarchist", perhaps in favour of "libertarian"
There are times when group decisions are necessary... and not everybody can be pleased every time. So then, rather than having a "consensus dictator", it's better to have a truly representative means of decision-making.
And really, what do these "audio anarchy" folks put forward as an alternative?
...Aside from changing our names to "libertarians" <_<
Originally posted by
[email protected]
Why pay attention to this individualist anarchist rant?
Basically, because their shitty ideas have to be confronted and defeated like all the other shitty ideas out there.
Apathy Maybe
In my opinion anarchism means no oppression, neither by a minority against a majority, nor by a majority against a minority.
Good luck with the bourgeois counter-revolution ;)
Exactly. No one would be forced to do anything.
"Forced to do anything"? No, not as such.
"Forced to live with the consequences of the group decision"? Well, of course.
Another way would simply for people to say what they are thinking of doing, others might join in if they like the idea. Voting by action rather then voices.
...Which is great when you're dealing with "small potatoes".
But when it comes to decisions that need the entire group to be "on board" (like, say, deciding when a given task will be carried out), decisions need to be made which are binding for the entire group.
Enter direct democracy.
bcbm
28th June 2006, 15:06
If direct democracy doesn't allow for the consideration and incorporation of minority viewpoints, I don't think it is what we should be striving for. If it is "one man(sic), one vote," as the saying goes, then it will certainly only reinforce the status quo and alienate those outside of it. To say that those who don't like the decision can simply "disassociate" seems nice in theory, but it sounds like the sort of "love it or leave it" drivel we're used to from our enemies, to me.
Again, what's the practical alternative? Consensus? Great, now one blowhard can just block any final decision from being made because he's an insufferable prick, despite the rest of the group disagreeing with him and agreeing with each other.
Direct democracy has the potential to piss off the minority. Consensus has the potential to screw the majority.
The Feral Underclass
28th June 2006, 16:03
Originally posted by
[email protected] 28 2006, 01:31 PM
Again, what's the practical alternative? Consensus? Great, now one blowhard can just block any final decision from being made because he's an insufferable prick, despite the rest of the group disagreeing with him and agreeing with each other.
Direct democracy has the potential to piss off the minority. Consensus has the potential to screw the majority.
Consensus doesn't quite work like that. Consensus can only really work if you are using it within a group that largely has the same politics. You cannot use consensus to come to a decision about violence if you have a group of people, half of which are pacifists. Consensus only really works when you are discussing practical or administrative issues and it is far more beneficial than not using it.
In Sheffield there is an insufferable prick called "Mozez." He is infamous in all walks of the revolutionary milieu. He has some mental problems, illusions of grandeur and indulges insecurely in some of the most brazen histrionic behaviour ever witnessed. He is incapable of shutting up and always believes ranting his spleen off in a meeting situation is productive.
How has he been dealt with? He is allowed to speak and then the meeting moves on, in fact facilitators usually make him shut up. If someone blocks a decision that the meeting has decided on the group can secede from the individual by claiming “disassociation”, which everyone has the individual right to do, and then reach consensus without him.
Democracy is the lifeblood of Anarchism. It's quite an elementary truth.
Won't there be a danger of a "tyranny of the majority" under libertarian socialism?
While the "tyranny of the majority" objection does contain an important point, it is often raised for self-serving reasons. This is because those who raised the issue (for example, creators of the 1789 US constitution like Hamilton and Madison) saw the "minority" to be protected as the rich. In other words, the objection is not opposed to majority tyranny as such (they have no objections when the majority support their right to their riches) but rather attempts of the majority to change their society to a fairer one. However, as noted, the objection to majority rule does contain a valid point and one which anarchists have addressed -- namely, what about minority freedom within a self-managed society.
There is, of course, this danger in any society, be its decision making structure direct (anarchy) or indirect (by some form of government). Anarchists are at the forefront in expressing concern about it (see, for example, Emma Goldman's classic essay "Minorities versus Majorities" in Anarchism and Other Essays). We are well aware that the mass, as long as the individuals within it do not free themselves, can be a dead-weight on others, resisting change and enforcing conformity. As Goldman argued, "even more than constituted authority, it is social uniformity and sameness that harass the individual the most." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 93] Hence Malatesta's comment that anarchists "have the special mission of being vigilant custodians of freedom, against all aspirants to power and against the possible tyranny of the majority." [Life and Ideas, p. 161]
However, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life under capitalism and urge forms of government and organisation which restrict popular participation (and promote rule, and tyranny, by the few) -- as classical liberals do -- libertarians argue that only a process of self-liberation through struggle and participation can break up the mass into free, self-managing individuals. Moreover, we also argue that participation and self-management is the only way that majorities can come to see the point of minority ideas and for seeing the importance of protecting minority freedoms. This means that any attempt to restrict participation in the name of minority rights actually enforces the herd mentality, undermining minority and individual freedom rather than protecting it. As Carole Pateman argues:
"the evidence supports the arguments . . . that we do learn to participate by participating and that feelings of political efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory environment. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that experience of a participatory authority structure might also be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic attitudes in the individual." [Participation and Democratic Theory, p. 105]
However, while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are at the forefront in expressing it), the "tyranny of the majority" objection fails to take note of the vast difference between direct and "representative" forms of democracy.
In the current system, as we pointed out in section B.5, voters are mere passive spectators of occasional, staged, and highly rehearsed debates among candidates pre-selected by the corporate elite, who pay for campaign expenses. More often the public is expected to choose simply on the basis of political ads and news sound bites. Once the choice is made, cumbersome and ineffective recall procedures insure that elected representatives can act more or less as they (or rather, their wealthy sponsors) please. The function, then, of the electorate in bourgeois "representative government" is ratification of "choices" that have been already made for them!
By contrast, in a direct, libertarian democracy, decisions are made following public discussion in community assemblies open to all. After decisions have been reached, outvoted minorities -- even minorities of one -- still have ample opportunity to present reasoned and persuasive counter-arguments to try to change the decision. This process of debate, disagreement, challenge, and counter-challenge, which goes on even after the defeated minority has temporarily acquiesced in the decision of the majority, is virtually absent in the representative system, where "tyranny of the majority" is truly a problem. In addition, minorities can secede from an association if the decision reached by it are truly offensive to them.
And let us not forget that in all likelihood, issues of personal conduct or activity will not be discussed in the neighbourhood assemblies. Why? Because we are talking about a society in which most people consider themselves to be unique, free individuals, who would thus recognise and act to protect the uniqueness and freedom of others. Unless people are indoctrinated by religion or some other form of ideology, they can be tolerant of others and their individuality. If this is not the case now, then it has more to do with the existence of authoritarian social relationships -- relationships that will be dismantled under libertarian socialism -- and the type of person they create rather than some innate human flaw.
Thus there will be vast areas of life in a libertarian socialist community which are none of other people's business. Anarchists have always stressed the importance of personal space and "private" areas. Indeed, for Kropotkin, the failure of many "utopian" communities directly flowed from a lack personal space. One of the mistakes made by such "utopian" communities within capitalism was "the desire to manage the community after the model of a family, to make it 'the great family.' They lived all in the same house and were thus forced to continuously meet the same 'brethren and sisters.' It is already difficult often for two real brothers to live together in the same house, and family life is not always harmonious; so it was a fundamental error to impose on all the 'great family' instead of trying, on the contrary, to guarantee as much freedom and home life to each individual." [Small Communal Experiments and Why they Fail, pp. 8-9]
Thus in an anarchist society, continual agreement on all issues is not desired. The members of a free society "need only agree as to some advantageous method of common work, and are free otherwise to live in their own way." [Op. Cit., p. 22]
Which brings us to another key point. When anarchists talk of democratising or communalising the household or any other association, we do not mean that it should be stripped of its private status and become open to the "tyranny of the majority" or regulation by general voting in a single, universal public sphere. Rather, we mean that households and other relationships should take in libertarian characteristics and be consistent with the liberty of all its members. Thus a society based on self-management does not imply the destruction of private spheres of activity -- it implies the extension of anarchist principles into all spheres of life, both private and public. It does not mean the subordination of the private by the public, or vice versa.
So, in other words, it is highly unlikely that the "tyranny of the majority" will exert itself where most rightly fear it -- in their homes, how they act with friends, their personal space, how they act, and do on. As long as individual freedom and rights are protected, it is of little concern what people get up to (included the rights of children, who are also individuals and not the property of their parents). Direct democracy in anarchist theory is purely concerned with common resources and their use and management. It is highly unlikely that a free society would debate issues of personal behaviour or morality and instead would leave them to those directly affected by them -- as it should be, as we all need personal space and experimentation to find the way of life that best suits us.
Today an authoritarian worldview, characterised by an inability to think beyond the categories of domination and submission, is imparted by conditioning in the family, schools, religious institutions, clubs, fraternities, the army, etc., and produces a type of personality that is intolerant of any individual or group perceived as threatening to the perpetuation of that worldview and its corresponding institutions and values. Thus, as Bakunin argues, "public opinion" is potentially intolerant "simply because hitherto this power has not been humanised itself; it has not been humanised because the social life of which it is ever the faithful expression is based . . . in the worship of divinity, not on respect for humanity; in authority, not on liberty; on privilege, not on equality; in the exploitation, not on the brotherhood, of men; on iniquity and falsehood, not on justice and truth. Consequently its real action, always in contradiction of the humanitarian theories which it professes, has constantly exercised a disastrous and depraving influence." [God and the State, p. 43f] In other words, "if society is ever to become free, it will be so through liberated individuals, whose free efforts make society." [Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 44]
In an anarchist society, however, a conscious effort will be made to dissolve the institutional and traditional sources of the authoritarian/submissive type of personality, and thus to free "public opinion" of its current potential for intolerance. In addition, it should be noted that as anarchists recognise that the practice of self-assumed political obligation implied in free association also implies the right to practice dissent and disobedience as well. As Carole Pateman notes, "[e]ven if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself alone, but alone with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always appropriate in political life, for there is no guarantee that participatory voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles of political morality." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 160]
If an individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision threatens their freedom (which is the basic principle of political morality in an anarchist society) they can (and must) act to defend that freedom. "The political practice of participatory voting rests in a collective self-consciousness about the meaning and implication of citizenship. The members of the political association understand that to vote is simultaneously to commit oneself, to commit one's fellow citizens, and also to commit oneself to them in a mutual undertaking . . . a refusal to vote on a particular occasion indicates that the refusers believe . . . [that] the proposal . . . infringes the principle of political morality on which the political association is based . . A refusal to vote [or the use of direct action] could be seen as an appeal to the 'sense of justice' of their fellow citizens." [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 161]
As they no longer "consent" to the decisions made by their community they can appeal to the "sense of justice" of their fellow citizens by direct action and indicate that a given decision may have impacts which the majority were not aware. Hence direct action and dissent is a key aspect of an anarchist society and help ensure against the tyranny of the majority. Anarchism rejects the "love it or leave it" attitude that marks classical liberalism as well as Rousseau (this aspect of his work being inconsistent with its foundations in participation).
This vision of self-assumed obligation, with its basis in individual liberty, indicates the basic flaw of Joseph Schumpeter's argument against democracy as anything bar a political method of arriving at decisions (in his case who will be the leaders of a society). Schumpeter proposed the "mental experiment" of imagining a country which, democratically, persecuted Jews, witches and Christians (see his famous work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy). He argues that we should not approve of these practices just because they have been decided upon by the democratic method and, therefore, democracy cannot be an end in itself.
However, such systematic persecution would conflict with the rules of procedure required if a country's or community's political method is to be called "democratic." This is because, in order to be democratic, the minority must be in a position for its ideas to become the majority's via argument and convincing the majority (and that requires freedom of discussion and association). A country or community in which the majority persecutes or represses a minority automatically ensures that the minority can never be in a position to become the majority (as the minority is barred by force from becoming so) or convince the majority of the errors of its way (even if it cannot become the majority physically, it can become so morally by convincing the majority to change its position). Schumpeter's example utterly violates democratic principles and so cannot be squared with the rules of democratic procedure. Thus majority tyranny is an outrage against both democratic theory and individual liberty (unsurprisingly, as the former has its roots in the latter).
This argument applies with even more force to a self-managed community too and so any system in which the majority tyrannises over a minority is, by definition, not self-managed as one part of the community is excluded from convincing the other ("the enslavement of part of a nation denies the federal principal itself." [P-J Proudhon, The Principle of Federation, p. 42f]). Thus individual freedom and minority rights are essential to direct democracy/self-management.
It should be stressed, however, that most anarchists do not think that the way to guard against possible tyranny by the majority is to resort to decision-making by consensus (where no action can be taken until every person in the group agrees) or a property system (based in contracts). Both consensus and contracts soon result in authoritarian social relationships developing in the name of "liberty."
For example, decision making by consensus tends to eliminate the creative role of dissent and mutate into a system that pressures people into psychic and intellectual conformity -- hardly a libertarian ideal. In the case of property and contract based systems, those with property have more power than those without, and so they soon determine what can and cannot be done -- in other words, the "tyranny of the minority" and hierarchical authority. Both alternatives are deeply flawed.
Hence most anarchists have recognised that majority decision making, though not perfect, is the best way to reach decisions in a political system based on maximising individual (and so social) freedom. Direct democracy in grassroots confederal assemblies and workers' councils ensures that decision making is "horizontal" in nature (i.e. between equals) and not hierarchical (i.e. governmental, between order giver and order taker). In other words, it ensures liberty.
http://infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci56
bombeverything
29th June 2006, 13:33
Originally posted by Additives
[email protected] 24 2006, 01:28 PM
The number of websites conatinins material that proclaims anarchists desire direct democracy came as some suprise to us while researching this critique [Of Democracy and majority rule] Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between indeviduals. The absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies and an unquestionable universal right to self determination. Those beliefs lead to many different visions of the world, but when genuinly held, they will never lead to democracy. Even quote "Direct democracy" demands surrender to the status quo and places a hierachy of group over indevidual. Thus seperating us from our desires ...any who would give up these principals should also give up the name "Anarchist", perhaps in favour of "libertarian" - Taken from an online radio station (audio anarchy)
What do the anarchists here think of this attack on Direct Democracy?
I disagree. When consensus is impossible direct democracy makes the most sense. Anarchists do not desire a society where everyone simply agrees with each other, that is, a society with no diversity or conflict. In fact, if anything, I would consider this person's views to be "libertarian" not anarchist.
Originally posted by bombeverything+Jun 29 2006, 02:34 AM--> (bombeverything @ Jun 29 2006, 02:34 AM)
Additives
[email protected] 24 2006, 01:28 PM
The number of websites conatinins material that proclaims anarchists desire direct democracy came as some suprise to us while researching this critique [Of Democracy and majority rule] Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between indeviduals. The absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies and an unquestionable universal right to self determination. Those beliefs lead to many different visions of the world, but when genuinly held, they will never lead to democracy. Even quote "Direct democracy" demands surrender to the status quo and places a hierachy of group over indevidual. Thus seperating us from our desires ...any who would give up these principals should also give up the name "Anarchist", perhaps in favour of "libertarian" - Taken from an online radio station (audio anarchy)
What do the anarchists here think of this attack on Direct Democracy?
I disagree. When consensus is impossible direct democracy makes the most sense. Anarchists do not desire a society where everyone simply agrees with each other, that is, a society with no diversity or conflict. In fact, if anything, I would consider this person's views to be "libertarian" not anarchist. [/b]
A libertarian is an anarchist. Although the right have appropriated the term for their own use.
Janus
30th June 2006, 08:49
Actually the votes could easily consistently go against a certain small group. It would only be oppressive if that group (or individual) had no way of disassociating with the bigger group or no way to not participate in an action.
That would depend on the matter at hand. But I don't see how the same person or group would consistently loose out. Anyways, what's your alternative?
Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jun 30 2006, 12:52 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Jun 30 2006, 12:52 AM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 11:36 PM
A libertarian is an anarchist. Although the right have appropriated the term for their own use.
Both usages come from about the same time period. [/b]
The right wing usage of libertarian only came in to use during the 30s and beyond. The original leftist usage goes back to the 19th century.
bcbm
30th June 2006, 21:53
The English term "libertarian" was used in the 19th century and early 20th century in America to refer to one who espoused that country's native form of individualist anarchism — a type of anarchism that opposed communist and syndicalist anarchism, and supported private property and a market economy.
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-libetarianism
I'm pretty sure other rightist leaning types used it before then, but I don't have time to look right now as I've got to go to work.
anomaly
1st July 2006, 08:10
I don't see much of a problem with direct democracy. The problem is that these anarcho-capitalists assume that any new directly democratic government would take on the same exact policy making powers as our current governments do. This is obviously untrue. Any direct democracy in a commune would have a policy which is far shorter reaching than current governments have. So in a sense this 'libertarian rant' is accurate, but I think the speaker merely misunderstands the role of a direct democracy in a commune.
Raj Radical
1st July 2006, 08:51
If the workers cant come to a decision, how can they manage themselves?
Direct democracy is not coercsion, you can always move to a different community if you are completely at odds with your comrades. (Not to sound "love it or leave it")
lawnmowergoWHUMMM
6th July 2006, 19:01
I guess one conflict here is the classic majority mandate vs. individual rights, which the supposed constitutions of the West probably do a good job of, even though we know that every day the theft of capitalism, against which no laws are written, is committed. We can just apply these ideas honestly, and I think it would create a fine compromise - mostly democracy, with some listed protected rights for individuals.
However I think the main objection rasied by the thread-starter (it was Additives Free, right?) is that direct democracy isn't what anarchists are looking for. I think this is definitely correct. The reason for this is that anarchists are not just looking for everyone being fairly included in the spectacle, but also destroying the spectacle of alienated power. "Democracy" as we know is simply a way of determining how a state, always exclusionary, behaves. The state will always be a bueaucracy which places authorized experts in charge and turns people into spectators. This destroys their initiative, and we'd forever be stuck with statists planning our city development and such instead of people taking this into their own hands.
What exactly this "democracy" is dealing with is really the key. When people talk about direct democracy now, they mean a different way of running the state. The direct democracy anarchists are looking really applies to a federation of (ex-)workers who meet to discuss what they're going to do with the world.
I am in conflict with the traditional model of "we all get together and vote on who is going to do what." I don't think the heavy, dictating hand of this method is necessary at all. I honestly believe that if people do what they feel like - the artists will do their thing, the techies will do their thing, the mothers will do their thing, the ambitious, charismatic people will want to rile people up into undertaking all sorts of projects. Further statements on my economic beliefs can be found here: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52206 If one went by those ideas, I think direct democracy as far as a production federation would be okay, but if people doing what they feel like makes a stable society, it begs the question as to whether such a structure would even really be necessary.
Edit: I suppose the one obvious counterexample would be a revolutionary/military situation. Now the concept of "love it or leave it" applied there would be interesting! And indeed, it has happened, as with the SDS. Also in the group Land and Liberty of the Russian 1860s, splitting into People's Will/Vengeance and Black Repartition.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.