Black Sheep
3rd September 2008, 04:08
I had been thinking about democratic centralism (DC) and the anarchists' from of organization.
In DC,
Democratic:
Both systems (theoretically) make the decisions in a democratic manner, with an elected central comittee proposing courses of action and the rest voting for or against (that is the standard procedure), or sometimes other members proposing stuff which go upwards and downwards to be voted again, etc.
Centralism:
The favorably voted thesis must be followed by all the members of the DC - working group (party i.e.) even if that individual disagrees.If he cannot compromise he either leaves the group/party community etc. or he is punished accordingly.
The anarchist way is exactly the same,but with the central committee absent (but it would be logical to expect certain individuals to have a better understanding or expertise in the subject and be the main source of ideas and stuff, but again everyone can have a say and a proposal on the subject)
The difference is that there is no coercion in accepting the majority's decision, which is terribly impractical.You will say that as long as the people's disobedience to the voted course of action does not harm the community it is ok,but think of the problems that could cause:
Dividing people up, breeding sectarianism and individualism, people going on doing what they thing is right..
For example let's say people have to decide where to build a road, and 2/3 vote and pass a road from A to B, while the rest from C to D.
Are the rest 1/3 allowed to go on building?
It is a stupid example but i can't think of a better one right now.The point i am trying to make is that since there is no coercion,every group would go on doing whatever they like,using the resources community.
And a question: would anarchists accept DC in post-rev era if there was a high level of public participation, thus keeping the central committee effectively in check?
If i m wrong about the definitions of the 2 systems correct moi.
In DC,
Democratic:
Both systems (theoretically) make the decisions in a democratic manner, with an elected central comittee proposing courses of action and the rest voting for or against (that is the standard procedure), or sometimes other members proposing stuff which go upwards and downwards to be voted again, etc.
Centralism:
The favorably voted thesis must be followed by all the members of the DC - working group (party i.e.) even if that individual disagrees.If he cannot compromise he either leaves the group/party community etc. or he is punished accordingly.
The anarchist way is exactly the same,but with the central committee absent (but it would be logical to expect certain individuals to have a better understanding or expertise in the subject and be the main source of ideas and stuff, but again everyone can have a say and a proposal on the subject)
The difference is that there is no coercion in accepting the majority's decision, which is terribly impractical.You will say that as long as the people's disobedience to the voted course of action does not harm the community it is ok,but think of the problems that could cause:
Dividing people up, breeding sectarianism and individualism, people going on doing what they thing is right..
For example let's say people have to decide where to build a road, and 2/3 vote and pass a road from A to B, while the rest from C to D.
Are the rest 1/3 allowed to go on building?
It is a stupid example but i can't think of a better one right now.The point i am trying to make is that since there is no coercion,every group would go on doing whatever they like,using the resources community.
And a question: would anarchists accept DC in post-rev era if there was a high level of public participation, thus keeping the central committee effectively in check?
If i m wrong about the definitions of the 2 systems correct moi.