Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

veuzi wrote (edited )

Anarchists can be 'for' or 'against' things that are fundamentally incompatible with anarchy. Such as democracy.

Anarchy and democracy are words that have a meaning. "Pro-democracy" anarchists seem to be content with removing all meaning from the word democracy, down to something like "people coming together to decide things" which is ridicilously vague and can be applied to less precise words such as "organisation" or "decisionmaking".

Meanwhile, democracy is understood in political science and mainstream politics in general as a form of majority rule or if not, a "rule of the people", which is at odds with anarchy as a negation of any and all rulership.

Zoe Baker is not a good source on the history of this debate as she misrepresents Malatesta's position, among others, by taking a quote that is criticizing the Russian platformists out of context and ignoring his overt criticism of democratic decisionmaking in his later writings.

We have discussed said video here by the way, although with a flair of insults and mockery (that's the Raddle style!) so keep that in mind:

f/Anarchism: Anarchism and Democracy | Thoughts?

f/entryism: Anyone else sick of crypto-Marxist entryists putting out propaganda to counter anarchist positions, and seeing "anarchists" lap it up?

12

__0 wrote (edited )

Straight up!

Definition of democracy, Its not just “making decisions”

There are so many different biases and drawbacks to every form of “decision process”

There are places for bad actors to manipulate, and groups to unwittingly make actions that violate ethical principles in both majorty based processes and consensus based processes…

Often there is no good way to make a decision, its really funny how democratic function seemingly negates any accountability of action, instead of blaming the individual we get to shrug and say, well it was decided democratically by the group …

This is even more problematic when “democratic” groups make choices that effect non-peers,

Anyone even remotely aware of the social situation of a so called “representational democracy” that has no legs to stand on as far as the accountability that real representation needs to be built upon… there is criticism of this in almost every political sphere. I would say its foundational to anarchism.

10

__0 wrote

Imagine if instead of making huge life destroying policy though “post ideological neoliberal democracy” we just had everyone flip a coin and admit the truth that people in positions of power don't actually stand for any sort of democratic or meritocratic ideal, and instead are just people who find themselves in a comfortable but fleeting position in a uncaring machine full of interchangeable parts. Im tired of democracy’s appeal to authority.

10

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

How would you answer Wayne Price's question about decisions on building, for example, a road in a future community? If not majority decision, what?

1

veuzi wrote

The decision to build a road isn't a decision I need to bother with. If the road has to go through other people's stuff, then maybe there shouldn't be a road.

6

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

That's just one illustration of the fact that many questions can't be solved simply by contracts between two individuals. Many questions conscern a collective, so how should the collective decide if people don't wanna grant every individual a veto against the rest?

Instead of a road, lets say a community discuss if the economy should be planned and socialized or consist of co-ops on a market? People disagree, how is the conflict resolved?

−2

veuzi wrote

That's just one illustration of the fact that many questions can't be solved simply by contracts between two individuals.

Then involve exactly as many individuals needed and no more, with no further powers granted to the association. Free association.

Many questions concern a collective, so how should the collective decide if people don't wanna grant every individual a veto against the rest?

Collectives that want this extent of power over individuals should be dissolved. Free association means that no collective is permanent.

Instead of a road, lets say a community discuss if the economy should be planned and socialized or consist of co-ops on a market?

Why does this need to be discussed and why are those the only options? Why does a local economy have to fit one size?

How about this: multiple, overlapping economies. Or maybe just no economy whatsoever. I really don't care about what some hypothetical economy looks like tbh.

7

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

No economy whatsover? Back to hunters and gatherers?

How are we gonna replace capitalism and state of we have no idea of an alternative, if we don't care about proposing a hypothetical economy?

−3

veuzi wrote

Anarchy has endless possibilities. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone.

6

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Such as, if U make a quick outline of one variety?

0

veuzi wrote

I make a thing for myself. I make another variety of the same thing and give it away.

I make a thing for myself and keep it.

I make a thing and exchange it for another thing I need.

I don't make a thing. But I am given the thing I thought about making. I reciprocate with a favor later on.

Can you even make an outline of an economy based on those vague examples?

4

ziq wrote

Why would you replace something you don't need.

5

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

State and capitalism should be replaced precisely because we don't need them, that is anarchist societies should take their place. But what should be the structure of anarchy, the institutional framework? What promotes maximum freedom for all?

0

ziq wrote

anarchy is when you kill society

5

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

If you don't trust Zoe Baker, how about for example the arguments presented by Wayne Price in the C4SS debate?

−5

veuzi wrote (edited )

Nope. Hot garbage is what I'd call Wayne Price's takes on democracy. So hot garbage that I'd think he's not an anarchist at all.

Case in point:

However, it is impossible to organize a society, even the freest, without some coercion—reduced to the minimum possible at the time. An anarchist revolution will take away the wealth and property of the capitalists—which the rich will regard as terribly coercive, no matter how nonviolently done. They may resist with counterrevolutionary armies! Also, after a revolution, there will still be demoralized anti-social people who have been hurt by the loveless society of capitalism. They will not immediately vanish.

This could come out of the mouth of a tankie and sound exactly as expected.

6

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Garbage this and garbage that, and tankie this. Don't you have any arguments?

−5

veuzi wrote (edited )

The argument is that Wayne Price half sounds like a liberal and half sounds like a tankie. In that quote, he's responding to Crimethinc's anti-democracy piece with a typical tankie argument, usually used against anarchism, i.e. "revolution is authoritarian", i.e. "I don't know the difference between force and authority".

Price's argument is both irrelevant in regards to the points brought up in the Crimethinc piece, and also exposes his own authoritarian tendencies by implying something needs to be done with "demoralized anti-social people" after the revolution.

And yes, it's garbage. That's my own opinion, it's not intended to be an argument. I don't do formal debate rules, so deal with it.

5

fortmis wrote

Can a cat be an anarchist? What is the current standing of spaghetti on anarchist menus? How many times is an anarchist allowed to buy new shoes before their political integrity comes into question? Is it acceptable as an anarchist to wear the colour purple, historically associated with monarchies? What does it mean as an anarchist to go to the cinema and watch a film void of any clear anarchist tendencies? Is it allowed? How should anarchists who like superhero movies be punished? What happens if an anarchist wears their underwear inside out? Where is the most anarchist garden located? Do people weed the anarchist garden?

12

ruinsociety wrote

Democracy always leads to authoritarianism under the guise of consensus.

12

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

What's the alternative way of making collective decisions, if consensus can't be reached?

0

asterism wrote

lol Zoe Baker.

11

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

She highlights interesting anarchist ideas, arguments and organizational forms.

−2

GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

Democracy is pretty anti-anarchist.

11

GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

So, no, I wouldn't say it anarchy is pro democracy.

10

fortmis wrote

interesting walking-backward logic

7

GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

I mean, I don't see how democracy, a collectivist mode of governance where the majority determines the lives of the individual via the power of sheer numbers, requiring increasing homogeneity of thought and action to function...is at all anarchist.

10

fortmis wrote

lol why are your posts all automatically downvoted even the music posts.... who downvotes music posts

5

GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

Oh, I just take away the automatic upvote.

9

fortmis wrote

hahaha wow such dedication to impartiality, such dismissal of ego!

7

anarqueefsta wrote

Anarchists don’t vote. We don’t want to be the majority that commands; we don’t accept being the minority that obeys. We just want to eat assholes and live outside the Law. With our sexy moms.

9

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

I vote on the lesser evil under the present system. Do you want to let a greater evil win elections, let's say let fascists win instead of social democrats?

−7

anarqueefsta wrote (edited )

At least you admit that you are supporting evil. I hope your participation in lesser evil incarceration/enslavement, lesser evil extractivism/plunder of the natural world, lesser evil abortion bans, lesser evil border walls and detention, lesser evil homelessness, lesser evil union busting, lesser evil wars, lesser evil cops/FBI/NSA/Capitalists/billionaires, et al., help you sleep at night.

Putting your energy into supporting who rules the prison does not make the prison go away. Putting minimal energy into just casting a vote every 4 years and calling it a day is also a symptom of just how obedient people have become. When your team loses you can, "oh well, at least I voted" yourself to sleep.

Instead of lending your symbolic support to voting for a lesser evil evil in a system that enslaves and causes suffering you could be chillin' out eating assholes and directly making the anarchy that you'd like to see in the world.

Since you seem to like pragmatism and voting here is an old, quick read you might enjoy: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-democracy-is-bankrupt-2

p.s.

"Do you want to let a greater evil win elections, let's say let fascists win instead of social democrats?"

The voting population does not "let" the fascists win these elections. The fascists always win these elections. Every single time.

6

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I think that insofar as there is a real thing called anarchism it is incompatible with democracy as it is a kind of coercive system that requires the decisions of the many to be enacted by all.
People who treat anarchism as a contingent historical phenomenon emergent in the west from the times of Godwin and Proudhon can show that it has included debates about whether democracy is possible in relation to anarchism and what then that democracy actually means.

I think that anarchists in their fullest forms are anarchists in our body, and so the contingent historical account has no place in our lived lives. We are tear-downers, we are over-throwers who build worlds in the flattened-out spaces we carve. We are engaged in permanent calculated revolt against external impositions. Democracy is one such system of external imposition.

9

when_you_sleep wrote (edited )

depends on which anarchist you're making the question; an ancom might say "yeah sure as long as it's direct democracy", but if you ask me, an anarcho-individualist and other stuff, if i'm for democracy, i'll just say "no, and don't ask me those type of questions again"

basically there's no central opinion that every anarchist agrees with; there'll be always an anarchist that says yes and another one that says no

7

PragmaticPaul OP wrote (edited )

"no, and don't ask me [non-smart] questions again"... doesn't sound like a fruitful attitude in conversations.

4

tuesday wrote

I know it's a quote but can you edit your comment to remove the ableist term in reference to intelligence?

4

when_you_sleep wrote

well i don't really care about getting something out of these kind of debates, i just say what i think and that's it usually ¯_(ツ)_/¯

3

jwkkwb wrote

anarchist is an adjective. anarchism and anarchy are nouns. anarchic is adverb.

democracy is power of common people as-opposed-to authoritarian hierarchy.

With/By an anarchism, this collectivity is held accountable, that no majority or bureaucrat should abuse any one .

democracy is not synonymous to a majority-rule paradigm, and not inherently supportive to an institutional state. anarchist people are critical participants within democratic process in opposition to the republic, or resist its imposition. so no. neither for nor against, as a rule.

1

Fool wrote

Democracy is domination of the minority by the majority, or in the case of consensus democracy a big waste of time with the same results.

Anarchy is no domination.

As such these are mutually exclusive, it's not too hard.

Historically there were many that called themselves Anarchists were for Democracy, but this just shows that anyone can call themselves Anarchists without understanding what anarchy means. Should we let the majority decide upon what to believe?

If Anarchists support Democracy, then Anarchism is just meaningless.

If you say democracy isn't domination, then democracy is just meaningless.

Why support something that is meaningless?

4

Esperaux wrote

Democracy in terms of a binding authority of government is a definite no. Just because laws were decided by a democracy doesn't make them any less unjust. Democratic decision is not a be all end all justification of taking away the autonomy of others. There are groups that may use democratic decision however for stuff like tactics or how to use a resource. To what degree this is useful varies.

Either ways people put too much emphasis on it one way or another. Your day to day actions aren't going to be done through voting. Though every now and then some people may find it a useful means to gauge opinion. Some go on to assert that it is a means of addressing informal hierarchy while others also point out it can lead to opportunism or severely slow down any attempts at action. Tactics tend to be diverse and vary from place to place.

2

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

What's the point of making democratic decisions if the are not followed?

1

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Above it is repeated that anarchists are against democracy and don't vote. But other anarchists are for and do vote. It is interesting to read about why and what kind of democracy.

In our union it works fine to reach consensus in smaller groups of co-workers but seldom bigger or when many branches decide together. Then we need direct democratic majority decisions. In larger scale like union congress we have delegates meeting and making decisions with directives from below.

When a union decides on for example fees or strikes, the minority must follow majority decisions. We can't allow scabs or free riders not paying the fee.

In our union we try to practice the norm that everyone affected by decisions should have the right to influence them, directly and sometimes via delegates.

Btw, I agree with Maximov, who Zoe Baker talks about, that anarchy is advanced democracy, in the form of federation of communes, and each commune consisting of neighbourhood and workplace assemblies and their elected councils.

1

veuzi wrote

When a union decides on for example fees or strikes, the minority must follow majority decisions. We can't allow scabs or free riders not paying the fee.

Why not? What's the deal with scabs and free riders? Are they more of an obstacle to workerism than work itself?

7

PragmaticPaul OP wrote (edited )

Do you seriously wonder why scabbing is a problem if we are gonna win strikes? How to finance our union activity if fees aren't paid by free riders (de facto parasites)? Are anarchists suddenly defending scabs n parasites?

What is "workerism"?

−6

veuzi wrote (edited )

"Parasites"

There you go. That's workerism. Noble worker makes a god out of work and a devil out of the non-worker.

I'd happily be a free rider and a parasite in this fucked up world, and a lot of people regard me as one already. Anyway: fuck work, fuck unions and fuck your antiquated leftism.

9

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

  • Noble worker makes a god out of work and a devil out of the non-worker.

No I don't. We are under wage slavery and it should be abolished through class struggle. Scabbing and free riding undermines class struggle and strengthens wage slavery.

  • I'd happily be a free rider and a parasite in this fucked up world

You go along fine with your co-workers?

  • Anyway: fuck work, fuck unions and fuck your antiquated leftism.

I don't see any arguments there. Btw, I am not a leftist.

−4

veuzi wrote (edited )

I'm a literal free rider. I dodge public transport fares. When I have a workplace, I look for opportunities to steal from it. Sometimes I shoplift.

The entire institution of work and production is a hostile one to me. Syndicalism simply isn't relevant to what I want, so scabs and freeriders are not an issue because I would likely never stay in a job long enough to join a union anyway.

But the point here is: moral condemnation of "free-riding" reinforces capitalist and workerist morality.

7

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

So the deal is other people produce and you steal from them? Is that your motto under the present system and under anarchy?

−3

veuzi wrote

I don't consent to living in capitalist society. Stealing is a way of taking what I need and undermining capitalist morality, law and economic interests to some extent.

In anarchy, it's a bit different, as there are no prohibitions or permissions. I would be even more careful with who I stole from and why I steal from them. There would probably have to be some sort of significant dispute to make that even worth it.

3

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Ok thief

−4

veuzi wrote

Ok liberal

4

ziq wrote

it's obv someone doing a bit

5

veuzi wrote

I'm kinda doing a bit myself tho. This guy's annoying but it's fun to be aggressively contrarian right back at them

4

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Not a liberal

−2

veuzi wrote

Haha keep telling yourself that

5

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

How am I liberal?

−4

veuzi wrote

I dunno, you seem like you just want to recreate the dynamics of liberal democracy on a more decentralized scale. You're at the very least spooked beyond reproach by enlightenment values shared by liberals. Your username is also a clue. Political pragmatism is mostly associated with realpolitik.

But the real answer is that you hit me with the tired "OK boomer" format and I responded in kind.

4

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"But the point here is: moral condemnation of "free-riding" reinforces capitalist and workerist morality."

Not capitalist morality, on the contrary, capitalists are big free riders and parasites and syndicalism is about fighting it. You don't fight it by beeing a small free rider imitation of the big ones.

What is workerist morality?

−3

veuzi wrote

Work currently exists under the capitalist system so capitalist and workerist morality can be considered as more or less the same thing. Capitalist ideology, however, adds the need for endless growth for individuals to overcome adversity, pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get "big".

In general, workerist morality is "if you exist in society then you must work/produce/contribute whether you want to or not".

My problem with that is I don't want to contribute to this society or any hypothetical future one and I don't owe society shit just because I exist.

capitalists are big free riders and parasites

That is not the main issue with capitalists. The issue is that they have power over you and decide for the lives of everyone, that their need for profit gets tons of people killed and their endless resource extraction and mass production is ruining life on this planet via pollution and global warming.

Straight up, there is nothing wrong with taking without giving in my eyes. I'm not "imitating" the "big freeriders". I'm taking the shit I need/want because I don't want to pay for it and/or don't have the money. Looking out for myself, in other words. Part of the motivation is also to spite the economy and the law, but the effects on that is of course marginal.

7

Gardon00765 wrote

go be a Saint and maybe people won't hsve to scab to live. Get off your worthless ass and maybe your complaints will start fixing themselves.

1

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Be a Saint?

Have to scab? Don't adults have some moral responsibility for how they behave? A worker can fight for better living conditions with the co-workers instead of undermining collective struggle.

  • your worthless ass

Is that an argument?

−2

Gardon00765 wrote

And a worker can take some direct action to make things better rather than whining over people trynna feed their family without risking jail time. So champion of the people, what have you done to make things better? Or even to stop scabs given that we both know you aren't doing anything against anybody that isnt a fellow cog.

2

veuzi wrote (edited )

Follow-up comment for the sake of explanation.

I'm not literally against unions and striking. But the rhetoric and politicking of old-school syndicalism leave a general bad taste in my mouth because of how much it makes work out to be something bigger and more important than yourself, and centers almost all of its analysis and political action around the workplace. Makes it so important to not only work (and preferably in an early 20th century factory!) but also unionize, organize and make a whole political unit out of the workplace, to acheive what? Better pay and less hours? All that effort for some scraps and a continuation of productivity? That's what unions and strikes in the 21st century have become, that's what they achieve.

But no, you want a revolution, and it would seem that you want this to happen through a pre-defined process where capitalism falls to a general strike. And after that? Well, if I take your rhetoric at face value it would almost seem as if you want unions to replace the state and demand that everyone who can work, work in a unionized workplace under the "one big union". But what's the point of a union if there is no more conflict with capitalists?

Maybe, just maybe, you have not actually ended capitalism? Maybe there are more issues with capitalism than just the fact that you don't get the full fruits of your labor working for a boss? Maybe there's an issue with the ideology of work and productivity itself?

I live in a social-democratic welfare state. Throughout my entire life, I have had to hear capitalist bootlickers use terms such as "parasite" and "freeloader" in reference to people who don't work and receive welfare payments. This ideology bleeds into the welfare agency itself, where you only receive payments and support if you can either prove your intention to work, or prove that you are unable to because of health reasons. There's not even a question of stating "I don't actually want to work" because that is preposterous! After all, I live in a society! Thanks to being born here by random chance, I am expected to contribute to a society I hate and an economy I would rather see destroyed before I'd want any benefits from it.

We also have strong unions here, and what they do is essentially maintain the capitalist status quo while providing the image of class struggle. A strike will last for a week or two, and then they go back to work, back to "normal".

So I don't blame the scabs for scabbing and the freeloaders for freeloading. They are looking out for their own interests too in this fucked up society. So if scabs and freeloaders are such an issue to your union activity, then I guess make them a better deal than just going full-on authoritarian shitlord and demanding tribute for the collectivity.

6

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

I think we can smash capitalism and state by means of unions. I want to reduce work to get more free time already within capitalism.

I am skeptical about general strike, though, more positive to the Swedish register method and other forms of mass civil disobedience. A union shouldn't run future society, the people should.

−3

veuzi wrote (edited )

I think we can smash capitalism and state by means of unions.

That's optimistic, bordering on naive.

I want to reduce work to get more free time already within capitalism.

That's more down to earth in regards to what unions can and do achieve. As for me, if I want more free time, I'll just quit.

A union shouldn't run future society, the people should.

If "the people" becomes a polity, what you have is not anarchy.

5

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Why is direct democracy not anarchy?

1

veuzi wrote

Do I have to explain this again?

Whether democracy is majority rule or "rule of the people", it's rulership. Rulership is authoritarian and unanarchistic. Anarchy means no rule.

1

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Well I don't agree it is authoritarian. At least it is better than individuals viewing themselves as aristocrats above democracy. And the question remains: what is the alternative way of making decisions concerning a collective?

0

veuzi wrote

Well I don't agree it is authoritarian.

Authority is the right to command. If a democratic decision imposes the collective's right to command, it is authoritarian. Words have meanings.

At least it is better than individuals viewing themselves as aristocrats above democracy.

I don't care.

And the question remains: what is the alternative way of making decisions concerning a collective?

Talking about it. Maybe a decision is made, maybe not. I don't care.

1

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"I don't care"

Now that's a serious way of challenging state and capitalism. Loads of people will join an anarchist movement.

−2

veuzi wrote (edited )

I don't care if you think democracy is better than whatever "aristocrats viewing themselves above it" means. I don't know any aristocrats and if I did, I'd steal their shit.

I don't care about prescribing a clear-cut alternative or one-size-fits-all solution in a context where everything is possible and any proposal you make will invite an infinity of further questions. "Yeah, but have you thought about this extremely specific hypothetical scenario? Checkmate". That's what you're gonna get if you start prescribing answers to "how does anarchy work". So I don't care. Anarchy is not a utopia and it is not an end goal. It is something you do right now, a way of relating to other individuals and society, and undermining the various archies we are forced to exist under.

Loads of people will join an anarchist movement.

Guess what, I don't care if people join the anarchist 'movement' or not.

3

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"Guess what, I don't care if people join the anarchist 'movement' or not."

You don't want to achieve a post-capitalist anarchy?

−3

veuzi wrote

Anarchist revolution isn't going to happen. If capitalism falls, it will collapse by its own mechanics. Praxis and direct action is still worth doing for its own sake.

Welcome to the wonderful world of anarcho-nihilism.

5

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"Welcome to the wonderful world of anarcho-nihilism."

Sounds like a squat for drug addicts and alcoholics

−5

veuzi wrote

Drug addicts and alcoholics are always welcome in my squat. Unlike you, I don't judge people for their choice of substances.

6

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

I still wonder what the alternative to syndicalist revolution is. How can we replace the state and with what kind of structure if not by direct democracy?

−3

veuzi wrote

The state should not be replaced. That's the point. Replacing the state means making a new state.

4

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

State and capitalism should be replaced precisely because we don't need them, that is anarchist societies should take their place. But what should be the structure of anarchy, the institutional framework? What promotes maximum freedom for all?

1

veuzi wrote (edited )

what should be the structure of anarchy

Free association. Taking part in any association, organisation, or even society generally should be voluntary. Abandoning an association for any reason, such as it not representing your interests, should not affect the means for the individual to live and be free.

the institutional framework?

A billion trillion institutional frameworks, maybe even no institutions and no common framework.

What promotes maximum freedom for all?

I'm not a utilitarian so I'm not about maximizing any values at all. Free association at least leaves the options open.

3

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Not much of a clarification. If one part of the population wants plan economy only, one part market economy only, and one part a mix. All proposals can't be implemented. Majority decision is a solution.

−2

veuzi wrote

Let the economies overlap, then. There is no reason for a singular form of economy to be imposed on a society.

Majority decision is a solution.

Is it a solution when it doesn't even resolve the conflict and leaves the minority dissenters with the conclusion of "tough shit, deal with it"?

More like an imposition.

2

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

"Let the economies overlap, then. There is no reason for a singular form of economy to be imposed on a society."

Sounds good. But if people won't compromise and reach a consensus, then a majority decision is needed I think.

1

veuzi wrote

I will refuse to abide by any majority decisions, and if it is forced on me, I will react violently.

4

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Good luck with getting along with other people

−4

veuzi wrote

Thanks. Think I'll fuck off now and go to my local dive bar where I will have no trouble with getting along with people.

4

capitan wrote

the form of federation of communes, and each commune consisting of neighbourhood and workplace assemblies and their elected councils

That all seems really hierarchical. Why don't you just elect a captain of the ship, then kill them if they act weak?

4

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Well it is anarchist organizational forms since the day of anarchism within the First international. Forms adapted to industrial mass society rather than pre industrial peasant communes. Power is to be excercised from the bottom up by.

−2

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Wayne Price asks a good question in the C4SS debate. How should decisions be made about building or not building a road in a community? If a majority is for and a minority against, who decides? Can a minority of one block any and all decisions in a community?

−2

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Wayne Price got no real answer from anti democracy anarchists. Will we see answers in this Raddle thread?

−1

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Still no serious answer in this thread...

0

ziq wrote

try to build a road through here and see what I do. your authoritarian attempt to force the will of the majority on me isn't going to change what happens to you and your bulldozer when you come knocking

4

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

Still waiting for serious alternatives to democracy. How make collective decisions?

1

ziq wrote

You force decision on me, I do you in.

4