Autonomy and Democracy

[enigma2517]

How do we prevent the so-called "tyranny of the majority"?

If everything in a post-capitalist society will be decided democratically, whether in councils or federations or whatever, at what point does the individual stop being subject to the will of others?

Is spur of the moment mass appeal always the most "just" thing to do? In what form does the concept of justice exist for lefties, if at all?

At point do we draw the line?

How does economy play into this? Yes I am familiar with worker's syndicates and municipal councils and what not, but honestly, how do we allocate scarce resources "democratically"? And please, don't just point me to a webpage, try to explain in your own words somehow.

Comments appreciated and welcome.

[ComradeOm]

The "tyranny of the majority" is also known as either democracy or the dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea that this is somehow a bad development is typical bourgeois bullshit. Obviously the capitalists (the minority) would fear the rule of the (majority)! That its of such importance to individualist anarchists says all you need to know about them.

In both communism and, to a lesser degree, socialism you will have your say in all decisions that will affect the future of society. Decisions will be made on a collective basis. If you don't like it then tough. Society decides what is best for society.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Personally I thought in Communism it was a form of Anarchism, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat or majority would only be during Socialism.

For the point is - in a Post-Socialist world, there Anarchy would be allowed to function, and there would be no more masters for anyone anymore, and no threat of a new master, because any new master even if one was created, would be quickly defeated by the workers.

The Commune might work, but it is up to the workers to see. I personally believe that in a Commune if the decision by a majority votes against a small amount, the individual can get angry, and like I said in my book "it only takes one to spread the plague to a whole town'

[enigma2517]

yeah, I suppose I understand.

I, as a human being, and a person with money, can go out and buy a gun tomorrow and shoot up my entire town. Does that mean I should be restricted from having free will and/or the right to buy a gun?

Enjoying a new degree of freedom would probably entail some risks, but I suppose thats the trade off.

Likewise, just as tyranny of the majority was something first used by the classical liberals to justify the republic, their solution instead was to get the enlightened among us to rule. Although perhaps historically necessary then, is it really what we should strive for? Probably not.

What I am trying to ask is, are we as society ready or fit to take on the responsibilty of deciding what is best for us. Now, this might sound trivial at first, of course we know what is best for us. The question isn't really that however, it's how do we acheive that.

I fear that although many would have the proper intention of abolishing class society, some people may begin to engage in activities that are actually counter-productive to our real goals. Are we really going to say that just because we're workers we're going to do what is inherently best for us?

So, when are we deemed responsible and intelligent enough to govern ourselves? Normally, I would just say, whenever we become class conscious! I mean, class consciousness always has seemed like a "litmus test" of sorts. Now that the workers know they are workers they can overthrow their masters yay!

But apparently its not as easy as that, because, as the simple existence of this board shows, there is no overtly "right" path to take on building a post-capitalist society. And holy crap, yet again, we have returned to the old "transition debate".

I can now see, although still not agree with, the position of many Leninists. I will admit that at times I severely lack confidence in the average person's ability to make some rather crucial (not to mention complex) issues about society. I do not doubt that at one point such a direct democracy may be possible, in fact I think it could take only a generation or two to undo the social conditioning and provide better education for the proletariat. Thus, a transitional stage (socialism) where a smaller group of the more advanced and intelligent revolutionaries make the decisions almost seems necessary.

At the same time, I also feel that the problems created by hierarchy and statism can match, if not become much more significant, than the problems presented by the ill-informed "demos".

So what do you, comrades, feel is the best way to go about approaching this problem of organization and education?

Should we go for the coercive overthrow of class society first and then create new structures to educate the masses or should we do less agitating now and develop structures within capitalism (I don't know, perhaps some kind local/regional study groups and community organizations) to educate the less fortunate so as to have everybody onboard before we take the final step?

I could be wrong altogether perhaps. Maybe these seemingly seperate steps are all actually incorporated into one another and cannot be seperated? I, for one, do nothing think so. Imagine, if things ever got really bad at one point or another, organizing a huge mob to overthrow the existing social order might not even be that hard.

The problem, of course, is that once we do that we'll be left standing there looking at our hands asking, "What's next?"

So, what is next, ladies and gentlemen?

ComradeOm: I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about the economic question. I think its of great importance. Care to indulge me?

[Delta]

I think that ideally people should have a say in the issue to the extent that they are affected by it. So if you're thinking about shaving your ass tomorrow, that's pretty much your call. I don't think I should get a say in it (or would want to hear about it). However, if the decision affects my life, then of course I should get a say in it. If someone's freedom infringes on my life, then it also infringes on my freedom, and thus can be restricted. So the individual stops being subject to the will of others as soon as you consider issues that essentially only affect that person.

Without hierarchies or centralization of power, I can't see why anyone would want a say in a decision that didn't affect them anyway.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

So what do you, comrades, feel is the best way to go about approaching this problem of organization and education?

Should we go for the coercive overthrow of class society first and then create new structures to educate the masses or should we do less agitating now and develop structures within capitalism (I don't know, perhaps some kind local/regional study groups and community organizations) to educate the less fortunate so as to have everybody onboard before we take the final step?


Well, as Trotsky stated somewhere (I forgot where exactly) that it is impossible to properly educated workers in Marxist theory in a capitalist society, to bring out their individual minds and allow them to blossom, because, as he said, if it was possible, there 'wouldn't be a need for a social revolution'

The Revolution will come first - blindly by the workers, who in their emotional rage overthrow capitalism, and then they won't truly require such deep education as their basic knowledge is enough - to grant them pure freedom, and to repress those who would try to enslave them again.

Of course, many of our current interpretations and classical works of literature might be lost, but they might survive as well - once again, its the workers choice after the revolution.

[rouchambeau]

Here's a question; should one's autonomy allow them to violate the autonomy of others?

[La Comédie Noire]

Democracy is the best action. I mean you could just make it so a group of people decide on what is more pragmatic but pragmatism is a subjective thing. But I do understand your worry about "The tyranny of the majority". However I beleive you think this way because you are thinking of Representitive Democracy in a Republic.

True democracy would mean each individual person votes on every decision wether it be on building a new road or what to do with surplus goods. It would'nt even have to be large scale each commune could have their own polls. I think if you make it so someone's vote actually effects them then they will make more informed decisions. The Individual polls would also stop one main authoritan power from taking over everything "not putting all your eggs in one basket" so to speak.

[Janus]

How do we prevent the so-called "tyranny of the majority"?

If everything in a post-capitalist society will be decided democratically, whether in councils or federations or whatever, at what point does the individual stop being subject to the will of others?
So you're talking about why direct democracy shouldn't be implemented.

I would think that this would only be a problem in a parliamentary republic rather than an egalitarian one. In true democracy, the majority would change depending on the issue.


So what do you, comrades, feel is the best way to go about approaching this problem of organization and education?
I don't think it is education and organization that will trouble us at this point as the people should be highly organized and educated by then. As for acclimitizing the new environment, well that will only take time.

[Ol' Dirty]

A people can not have their cake and eat it too. If a society is run by a despot, they are under the tyranny of one. In a democracy, under the tyranny of many. In any functioning society, their are many positives and drawbacks. The tyranny of the majority will always exist in democratic societies, at least in good-sized ones.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:01 AM
Here's a question; should one's autonomy allow them to violate the autonomy of others?
Part of the principal of autonomy is that ones autonomy cannot limit other people autonomy. So you dont have teh autonomy to kill someone.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

That is why Anarchism fails in comparison to Communism - the neccesity of Socialism is to make it so people won't go and kill and interfere on others liberty, while in Anarchism one could simply desire to take up power again.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:42 PM
That is why Anarchism fails in comparison to Communism - the neccesity of Socialism is to make it so people won't go and kill and interfere on others liberty, while in Anarchism one could simply desire to take up power again.
Anarchists are communists. And this claim is outrages. One can not "take power" in anarchism without answering to the armed people.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:01 PM
Here's a question; should one's autonomy allow them to violate the autonomy of others?
I don't believe so. What would be the reason for allowing it? It couldn't be because you valued autonomy, because you're allowing it to be violated.


That is why Anarchism fails in comparison to Communism - the neccesity of Socialism is to make it so people won't go and kill and interfere on others liberty, while in Anarchism one could simply desire to take up power again

Yes, some people may desire to take up power again, and the people's militias will have to respond to these threats. But this is infinitely better than a state being created. How well have socialist states been in not interfering with other's liberty?

[rouchambeau]

That is why Anarchism fails in comparison to Communism - the neccesity of Socialism is to make it so people won't go and kill and interfere on others liberty, while in Anarchism one could simply desire to take up power again.

That's so fucking stupid. I dare you to present one example of such an anarchist society. Don't you marxists believe in looking at history for the answers and truth? I suggest you check out how anarchism has existed in 1936 Spain, the early zionist communes, etc.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

they were destroyed or ended weren't they? Anarchism can exist quite nice temporarily but there is always a risk if it is immediate,

after all Anarchism is the last stage of Communism.

and I'm not saying there should be a state - I'm just saying the People's Militia should be active in preventing such things from arising.

You must prevent the threat of a outside influence changing it back into a non-anarchist state, which is often hard to do, unless the entire world falls into Anarchism without other states intervening, and the militias and communes quickly put down those that would restore other states - for otherwise, they will restore other states.

[Enragé]

in my opinion
personal matters decided by the individual
local matters by the local council
regional ones by the regional council
etc etc etc
worldwide matters by a worldwide council.

[rouchambeau]

RevolutionaryMarxist, you didn't even address what I commented. You have yet to come up with even one example to back your claims.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:44 AM
RevolutionaryMarxist, you didn't even address what I commented. You have yet to come up with even one example to back your claims.
I did address what you commented, but mixed in with responses to the several other people who replied as well.

Looking at Anarchism in the Spanish Civil War, it seems quite ideal, with the good old Marxist principle of "from each according to his/her ability to each according to his/her need" being implemented in worker controlled areas - the Anarchist militia's seemed quite effective and interestingly organized -


I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

yet we must remember that this is all during a war, what about after the war, during peacetime? We have yet to see anarchism develop in peacetime - then as I said, 'someone will take power again' - unless steps are made, to prevent such cases where another could take power again - namely the stage of Socialism.

Capitalism->Socialism -> Communism/Anarchism

[YSR]

We have yet to see anarchism develop in peacetime - then as I said, 'someone will take power again' - unless steps are made, to prevent such cases where another could take power again - namely the stage of Socialism.

Well, YOU "have yet to see anarchism develop in peacetime." The rest of us who pay attention have.

Anarchism is flourishing in several communities around the world. Freetown Christiania is one example.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Yet in that "Freetown" - the Danish Goverment is apparently trying to force law upon them - see, so there still exists a immense threat that their anarchy will be threatened.

I mean even now, recently, the Danish goverment has tried to destroy the Freetown - and the Danish Police like to frequent raid it as well, along with large arrests (100 <) - It seems like the Anarchy ain&#39;t doing so well.

Indymedia, 9/5/2005:

off &#39;Fredens Eng&#39; (The Meadow of peace) which is a part of the site, where people live in trailers.

In one of the biggest mass arrests in Denmark ever, the police made over 100 arrests. There are various reports of injured people. Most people have been charged with not following police orders, although some with charges relating to violence against the police.

Christiania had been self administrative, meaning no permit was needed to &#39;build&#39; new property or have trailers parked up on its grounds. Newly introduced law, means trailers have to leave, so new development can take place. The people from Christiania have resisted this new legislation for years. They wish to keep their autonomy and self managed decision making structures that have kept the place running for over 30 years...

[Janus]

after all Anarchism is the last stage of Communism.
Strange wording there. An anarchist society is basically the same as a communist society.


Anarchism is flourishing in several communities around the world. Freetown Christiania is one example.
I would hardly consider it to be flourishing. They are basically living due to the good will of the gov. who have yet refrained from shutting them down.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:15 PM

after all Anarchism is the last stage of Communism.
Strange wording there. An anarchist society is basically the same as a communist society.


Anarchism is flourishing in several communities around the world. Freetown Christiania is one example.
I would hardly consider it to be flourishing. They are basically living due to the good will of the gov. who have yet refrained from shutting them down.
They are already trying as I pointed out :P

[rouchambeau]

Again, "RevolutionaryMarxist" you have not back up your original claim. Do so, or admit that you were wrong.

[anomaly]

I do not agree with the saying &#39;tyranny of the majority&#39;. We have to remember that in a democratic system, the people constituting the &#39;majority&#39; will change from vote to vote. It is not as if we have a permanent set of rulers over the minority.

As far as allocating resources goes, I think it will be plainly clear to the people of any commune what resources are in need. Perhaps the individuals who regularly work with said resource will have to point out that it is in need, but that is all. After that, they would simply contact the closest distributor of the resource and say they are in need of it. As I always say, such communication will likely be the key in a post-revolutionary society.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:14 PM
Again, "RevolutionaryMarxist" you have not back up your original claim. Do so, or admit that you were wrong.
Um I believe I did address the points you made, of Spain and then the other persons mention of Freetown in Denmark...and those are historical examples.

After all - in earlier primitive communities, while they may have functioned perfectly as is expected under normal anarchism - there still existed that outside force (In the form of neighboring non-anarchist groups and those who wanted to begin to forge a empire), who then came in and conquered them - relatively easily too.

Those communities existed by only bringing in those who would follow their rules - thus the people who wouldnt were left on the outside, and they attacked this Utopia - sort of like the failure of the theory "Socialism in One Country" - no different than with "Anarchism in One Country".

World Anarchism and prevention of those who would destroy anarchism - aka Communism :)

[rouchambeau]

That is why Anarchism fails in comparison to Communism - the neccesity of Socialism is to make it so people won&#39;t go and kill and interfere on others liberty, while in Anarchism one could simply desire to take up power again.

THIS is what I&#39;m talking about. You haven&#39;t presented a single example to back up your description of Anarchism.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:49 AM

That is why Anarchism fails in comparison to Communism - the neccesity of Socialism is to make it so people won&#39;t go and kill and interfere on others liberty, while in Anarchism one could simply desire to take up power again.

THIS is what I&#39;m talking about. You haven&#39;t presented a single example to back up your description of Anarchism.
I just did - how those anarchist societies were taken over by outer forces - so thus anarchism is impossible without socialism, for then anarchism would be broken.

Every case of a anarchist society in history has fallen due to this generalization.

[anomaly]

Revolutionary Marxist, you, like any good Marxist, uphold Marx&#39;s theory of historical materialism, do you not? And if that is the case, then let me inform you that I, and many other anarchists, also agree with this theory. So how can it be that anarchism could even have come about in those &#39;societies&#39; you mention?

What you are doing, and all you are doing, is taking a failed past and using it to predict the outcome of future events. But historical materialism is all you are talking about. Anarchism didn&#39;t arise then (those societies cannot be described as &#39;anarchist&#39; in any knowledgable sense of the word) because productive forces were not advanced enough. Now, when those forces will be advanced enough, I do not know. But when they are, we&#39;ll know, because the public will revolutionize. Being affects consciousness, as any Marxist will tell you.

As such, how can you intelligably say that anarchism cannot work, when the conditions that may allow anarchism to arise have not existed? I hypothesize that, given public support, the people can destroy those &#39;outside forces&#39; without your lovely state apparatus. After all, what is the state but control, a means of rule? The people themselves have a great amount of power given the numbers, and it is this fact that socialists, usually driven by arrogance and a feeling that they &#39;know better&#39; than the people, ignore.