Direct Democracy: The only true form of anarchism,

[S.O.I]

communism, and socialism.

Yes, i said it. And you better believe it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
http://aia.mahost.org/dec_directdemocracy.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/andrew/zap_asr.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Revolution is Democracy.

[PigmerikanMao]

I'd have to agree with you- the only true utopia would be one where the people's will would be held without being clouded by bureaucracy and "representation."

Edit: Though this shouldn't be in Chit Chat, you won't get any logical responses here.

[S.O.I]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:38 am
Though this shouldn't be in Chit Chat, you won't get any logical responses here.
what do you mean? i just got one

[PigmerikanMao]

That was technically my first post here... dear god on a stick- I can feel my IQ teh droppping!!!11

(( :P ))

[Fawkes]

Why is this in Chit-Chat? Moved to Theory I guess.

[Comrade Rage]

But wouldn't Direct Democracy eventually falter due to a lack of involvement, and degenerate into a repressive government?

I mean, that's what happened in Ancient Greece, isn't it?

[S.O.I]

But wouldn't Direct Democracy eventually falter due to a lack of involvement, and degenerate into a repressive government?

I mean, that's what happened in Ancient Greece, isn't it?

lol.. youre not the right stalinist to be talking about degenerated governments...

we do not live in greece and this is not the the year 146-whatever.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/e-democracy
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/deliberative_democracy

[Bilan]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 02:23 pm
But wouldn't Direct Democracy eventually falter due to a lack of involvement, and degenerate into a repressive government?

I mean, that's what happened in Ancient Greece, isn't it?
No. That's a complete misunderstanding of Democracy, as well as Ancient Greece! :lol:

[MarxSchmarx]

But wouldn't Direct Democracy eventually falter due to a lack of involvement, and degenerate into a repressive government?

It's a matter of scale. If direct democracy is practiced with 6 billion people, almost certainly it will. But if direct democracy is practiced, say, in a town of 200 people where everyone knows each other, then it is more robust.

Direct democracy is not a panacea. First, large numbers of people can be manipulated. Second, a directly democratic state is still a state.

[jaffe]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 15, 2007 06:05 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 15, 2007 06:05 am)
COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 02:23 pm
But wouldn't Direct Democracy eventually falter due to a lack of involvement, and degenerate into a repressive government?

I mean, that's what happened in Ancient Greece, isn't it?
No. That's a complete misunderstanding of Democracy, as well as Ancient Greece! :lol: [/b]
Only rich elder men were aloud to vote.

[Enragé]

Direct democracy would ofcourse need decentralisation, else it wouldnt be as direct as it could be, as well as not as efficient.
If you give people the power to change things they will be involved. You may point to democracies which exist now, but those arent actual democracies (just go ask the average joe who doesnt vote why he does so "it wont change a fucking thing").

[The Douche]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 04:23 am
But wouldn't Direct Democracy eventually falter due to a lack of involvement, and degenerate into a repressive government?

I mean, that's what happened in Ancient Greece, isn't it?
Then what do you suggest will replace the state apparatus?

[La Comédie Noire]

People become disenfranchised with voting because what they vote on doesn't immediatley concern them. Like people said small scale voting is what is needed to ensure an accurate consensus because it will allow people to vote on what affects them.

In regards to the "people will starve waiting for the votes to be tallied!" argument.

Electronic voting on a small scale will greatly eliminate the so called "slow process" of voting.

[Herman]

The first step to me before a pure direct democracy is participatory democracy, or semi-direct democracy. It's a way for people to get used to having more power, and perhaps wanting even more.

[obsolete discourse]

Anarchism can only be reduced to "direct or real democracy" at the point when anarchism is usurped into politics. The use-value of anarchism is then a political-ideology to be integrated into the political economy of Reformist and Leftists; to threaten the state with and win leverage--political capital. Where as anarchy and communism are specific expressions of their own historical and social undertaking. If anything, to spread anarchy and live communism we must make a clean break with democratic discourse; to prove not our distant relation, but rather that we are another species all together.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Two problems [and an off-hand remark] with the statement concerning Ancient Greece:

1. The city-state did not practice direct democracy.
2. The unification of the city-states could have been achieved through more democratic means. Anarchists don't view segregated communes as practicable nor idealistic.

My off-hand remark is that any government can change.

[Nusocialist]

Direct democracy is certainly important but as is individual autonomy and institutions and outlets for the maximum maintenance of this autonomy are needed.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:36 am
Direct democracy is certainly important but as is individual autonomy and institutions and outlets for the maximum maintenance of this autonomy are needed.
How would direct democracy, a form of making descions for the collective as a whole, infringe on individual autonomy? What kind of things are you looking to do that direct democracy would prevent? Odds are such things are anti-social and therefore have no place in anarchist society anyways.

Does direct democracy limit personal autonomy in that it prevents you from touching little kids? Yes... Does it limit person autonomy in that it prevents you from using the labor power of other for your profit? Yes...

I'm sorry but I fail to see what you're after with your statement. Anarchism, as a revolutionary ideology is not individualist.


Anarchism can only be reduced to "direct or real democracy" at the point when anarchism is usurped into politics. The use-value of anarchism is then a political-ideology to be integrated into the political economy of Reformist and Leftists; to threaten the state with and win leverage--political capital. Where as anarchy and communism are specific expressions of their own historical and social undertaking. If anything, to spread anarchy and live communism we must make a clean break with democratic discourse; to prove not our distant relation, but rather that we are another species all together.

Could you please explain what your alternative to direct democracy is then? Surely the people need a way, post revolution, to make and carry out descisions, if not direct democracy then what? How can you say that one of the core concepts of both anarchism and communism is reformist?

[RGacky3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

Consensus Democracy is the only true form of Anarchism, any system where you have a desicion made for you is not a true form of Anarchism.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:24 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

Consensus Democracy is the only true form of Anarchism, any system where you have a desicion made for you is not a true form of Anarchism.
That wiki is extremely weak. Would you mind elaborating on consensus democracy? Is it the same thing as consenus forms of descision making which are employed by many anarchist collectives?

If so how does it really differ from "direct democracy". Do you really think people should be able to "block" like they can in anarchist groups? Should you be able to block the implementation of necessary elements of anarchist/communist theory? Couldn't I block common ownership of our place of business? Then what?

I wholeheartedly disagree with consensus. In favor of more simple things like 3/4 majority.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

W.P. Cockshott devotes a lot of time to the issue of direct democracy in Toward the New Socialism(available free from a link on my blog). I tend to agree with him; but the only problem is that his model is somewhat removed from the context of a post-revolutionary state. I think that this is an ideal that people should strive for, but I don't see anarchists as appreciating the necessary transitional phases and discipline that goes with creating such a society. Freedom comes with responsibility.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:45 pm

How would direct democracy, a form of making descions for the collective as a whole, infringe on individual autonomy? What kind of things are you looking to do that direct democracy would prevent? Odds are such things are anti-social and therefore have no place in anarchist society anyways.





It could stop me doing anything. It could ban drinking or drugs or force me to work in a particular occupation.


Does direct democracy limit personal autonomy in that it prevents you from touching little kids? Yes... Does it limit person autonomy in that it prevents you from using the labor power of other for your profit? Yes...

I'm sorry but I fail to see what you're after with your statement. Anarchism, as a revolutionary ideology is not individualist.Could it stop me smoking weed or working in my chosen profession; concievably.


Could you please explain what your alternative to direct democracy is then? Surely the people need a way, post revolution, to make and carry out descisions, if not direct democracy then what? The only way is a decentralised seperation of power including the allocating to the individual the most autonomy possible.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:45 pm

How would direct democracy, a form of making descions for the collective as a whole, infringe on individual autonomy? What kind of things are you looking to do that direct democracy would prevent? Odds are such things are anti-social and therefore have no place in anarchist society anyways.





It could stop me doing anything. It could ban drinking or drugs or force me to work in a particular occupation.


Does direct democracy limit personal autonomy in that it prevents you from touching little kids? Yes... Does it limit person autonomy in that it prevents you from using the labor power of other for your profit? Yes...

I'm sorry but I fail to see what you're after with your statement. Anarchism, as a revolutionary ideology is not individualist.Could it stop me smoking weed or working in my chosen profession; concievably.


Could you please explain what your alternative to direct democracy is then? Surely the people need a way, post revolution, to make and carry out descisions, if not direct democracy then what? The only way is a decentralised seperation of power including the allocating to the individual the most autonomy possible.

[obsolete discourse]

cmoney says:
Could you please explain what your alternative to direct democracy is then? Surely the people need a way, post revolution, to make and carry out descisions, if not direct democracy then what? How can you say that one of the core concepts of both anarchism and communism is reformist?

I see a difference from direct democracy and the consensus form of decision making--both formal and informal. Again, other can try and relate them, but I see recognize difference, both in their roots and application. Moreover, my critique is aimed less at the actual practice, and more at the representation and discursive-reproduction that plays out everytime anarchists say "democracy." There is a disturbing tendency of radicals to appeal to social democracy...

As for the "core concepts..."

I draw from Max Stirner, Marx other young Hegelians. I think the art movements and philosophical movements of modernity and post-modernity have solved this problem and discovered even more complex ones. Furthermore, I don't worry my self with descision-making in utopia or whatever, becuase I cannot comprehend such a world just yet. Our task takes place in the present, and in the present radically anti-democratic descision making systems like formal and informal consensus, and autonomy seem to hold more wieght in my exprience. My friend's and I don't casts votes on where to eat, we simply discuss it until we come to consensus and then eat. Sometimes we break and do seperate things. Why can't this work?

[The Douche]

Originally posted by obsolete [email protected] 18, 2007 11:14 pm

cmoney says:
Could you please explain what your alternative to direct democracy is then? Surely the people need a way, post revolution, to make and carry out descisions, if not direct democracy then what? How can you say that one of the core concepts of both anarchism and communism is reformist?

I see a difference from direct democracy and the consensus form of decision making--both formal and informal. Again, other can try and relate them, but I see recognize difference, both in their roots and application. Moreover, my critique is aimed less at the actual practice, and more at the representation and discursive-reproduction that plays out everytime anarchists say "democracy." There is a disturbing tendency of radicals to appeal to social democracy...

As for the "core concepts..."

I draw from Max Stirner, Marx other young Hegelians. I think the art movements and philosophical movements of modernity and post-modernity have solved this problem and discovered even more complex ones. Furthermore, I don't worry my self with descision-making in utopia or whatever, becuase I cannot comprehend such a world just yet. Our task takes place in the present, and in the present radically anti-democratic descision making systems like formal and informal consensus, and autonomy seem to hold more wieght in my exprience. My friend's and I don't casts votes on where to eat, we simply discuss it until we come to consensus and then eat. Sometimes we break and do seperate things. Why can't this work?
Max Stirner is a reactionary. Individualist anarchism has a modern equivalent, its called anarcho-capitalism. That is inevitably what individualist anarchism becomes.


It could stop me doing anything. It could ban drinking or drugs or force me to work in a particular occupation.

Yes it could, if the majority of the people in the community decided that those things were negative. And it wouldn't be the first time such ideas had been associated with anarchism. There were strong prohibitionist elements to the anarchist movements in Spain and Italy. It could not be used to force you into a paticular occupation.

[/QUOTE]The only way is a decentralised seperation of power including the allocating to the individual the most autonomy possible. [QUOTE]

That isn't an actual alternative is it? You can't say direct democracy is wrong but not suggest a better alternative. I see what your argument is, now show me your solution. What kind of governing system can be used that will allow us to defend the revolution?

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:02 pm
Max Stirner is a reactionary. Individualist anarchism has a modern equivalent, its called anarcho-capitalism. That is inevitably what individualist anarchism becomes.




You don't know what you are talking about. Ancapism is not the modern incarnation of Stirner's individual anarchism nor Tucker's or Spooner's for that matter.


Yes it could, if the majority of the people in the community decided that those things were negative. And it wouldn't be the first time such ideas had been associated with anarchism. There were strong prohibitionist elements to the anarchist movements in Spain and Italy. It could not be used to force you into a paticular occupation.
You seem to be admitting that direct democracy is not completely anarchist. By its very nature it means the rule or cracy of the people and hence their are rulers instead of no rulers.


That isn't an actual alternative is it? You can't say direct democracy is wrong but not suggest a better alternative. I see what your argument is, now show me your solution. What kind of governing system can be used that will allow us to defend the revolution?Did I not just give you a fucking solution?

[The Douche]

You don't know what you are talking about. Ancapism is not the modern incarnation of Stirner's individual anarchism nor Tucker's or Spooner's for that matter.

The anarchism of Stirner and Tucker (I am not familiar with spooner) is anti-socialist. If the highest authority is the individual then how can the revolution be deffended? How could we stop one person from hiring other people and using thier labor power to generate private capital? According to Stirner it is not desireable to stop them, it isn't anarchist to stop them.


You seem to be admitting that direct democracy is not completely anarchist. By its very nature it means the rule or cracy of the people and hence their are rulers instead of no rulers.

Because social anarchism is about putting the power in the hands of the people. It seems to me that your understanding of anarchist theory is very narrow. Do you claim that all social anarchists are therefor not anarchists?


Did I not just give you a fucking solution?

This is the solution you suggested:

The only way is a decentralised seperation of power including the allocating to the individual the most autonomy possible.

No I don't consider that extremely vague single sentence to be a solution. Please expand upon it.