Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq OP wrote

democracy is tyranny of the majority, however you try to window dress it.

8

kittybecca wrote (edited )

I think this is a debate over semantics more than substance, where "pro-democracy" anarchists are using a different definition of democracy than "anti-democracy" anarchists, but maybe I'm wrong. The truth is that democracy signifies lots of mutually exclusive things, as Orwell pointed out, so it's better to talk about specifics than big abstract words with different meanings to everyone.

4

conseil wrote

I mean, I can take it or leave it.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

democracy is too vague a word.

obviously we all want more egalitarian social relationships in some capacity

but even among radical communities there is fierce disagreement over definitions, let alone the goals, and simply forget about the desirability, of any revolutionary movement or tendency

3

betterletter wrote (edited )

In my utopia, democracy would always be a consideration, but not rule by democracy. The most important thing would be that citizens could be provided with the ability to stay in or leave any commune, at any time. That way if a minority is threatened by "democracy", they can leave.

EDIT: you guys are all right about the flaws in my thinking here. Ive gotten 4 hours of sleep a night for the past week and i was kind of just rolling with whatever. if you have any additional recommended reading for me so I can understand better forms of decision making besides democracy please tell me

2

[deleted] wrote

5

ziq OP wrote

It's not a successful democracy until all the minorities leave the country.

5

ziq OP wrote

leaving your home and everything you know is easier said than done.

4

Pop wrote

The "cracy" in "democracy" literally means "rule"

4

betterletter wrote

then i should have said "public majority opinion would be a consideration".

If not democracy, what other options do we have for mediating conflict?

2

Pop wrote

then i should have said "public majority opinion would be a consideration".

thinking about how you affect others has no special relation to democracy, and majority opinion is often trash

If not democracy, what other options do we have for mediating conflict?

maybe have a look around f/accountability and f/decision_making as a starting point

4

betterletter wrote

alright. im reading From Democracy to Freedom at the moment as well. i suppose anarchist mediation and mutual aid does not need further labels

5

ziq OP wrote

how does voting mediate conflict though? have you seen brexit? president trump? r/metanarchism?

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

My anarchy vision for the future is already based more on a tribal-band form of living, because I am totally of the Small is Beautiful mindset. The tribes may form alliances with other tribes, but they'd be more Iroquois Confederation-style alliances, where while there's a common code/law that unites the tribes, each one still maintains its own sovereignty and can conduct their own affairs as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of the other tribes. As tribes, stuff would be voted on and decided on by the adult members of the tribes. I guess that qualifies that as democracy, but I'm not sure.

2

d4rk wrote

Its the very basis of my anarchism

1

ziq OP wrote

Can you describe your anarchist democracy?

1

d4rk wrote

Anarchist Democracy is very different from Western "Democracies" because

  1. It is Party-less: meaning no one set or ideology will define rules throughout a nation

  2. It is powerless: there is no institution giving any of the people any power. Everyone will have to agree on what to do since there is no one with real power to command them to do so.

  3. It is Confederal: You don't need an entire country for this type of democracy. A simple Village assembly or a Simple Union Meeting will do. What works or not in your village or workplace may influence the other to act accordingly.

  4. There is no Representation besides yourself(aka it's Direct): Your Congressperson or Senator no longer exists as a political entity. You decide what you do. In all essences, you have become free

This is what I see Anarchist Democracy is.

2

ziq OP wrote

  1. You can still vote for an independent candidate in a western democracy.

  2. that's not true, the people are the power, that's why they call it "power to the people".

  3. a minor government is still a government and thus not anarchist.

  4. you don't decide, the majority decide. If you decided, you wouldn't need to vote, you'd just do it.

1

d4rk wrote

No. 4 was the whole point of Anarchist Democracy. It only gets voted with if people have a problem with it or want to adapt it from another Village or Union.

  1. It's not a minor government. It's an absence of power, therefore Anarchy

  2. It would be pedantic to think it the waynit was since Greece but we've moved on. The people before until now think it is the government's right bestowed unto the people. But now, we just think that its just there ever since without the need for Government & irregardless of it.

1)Again, No Candidates just you

1

d4rk wrote

I'd also like to ask ziq, the contrast of Democracy is Republicanism. That is technically the very polar opposite of Anarchism

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Democracies and republics (and constitutional monarchies) aren't the only options. What about anarchy?

3

d4rk wrote

As far as I know, Democracies have never yet existed, It was always Republics at the necks of each other. Anarchist Societies & Socialist States have tried to eradicate the idea of Republican ideas & institute democracies to naught.

1