Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote

I'm not trying to create a society. I'm not a dictator.

I am kind of opposed to being against democracy in general.

address my points made in w/democracy and/or the further reading linked at the bottom. there's nothing anarchist about democracy. democracy is a clear form of collective authority even in its 'pure' forms.

Participatory democracy may have yet to approach any form of utopian society, but, it is the best example of a worthwhile democratic project that I can think of.

define 'worthwhile'. How has participatory democracy fostered anarchy?

2

A_Lane OP wrote

How is society equivalent to dictatorship? Should I ask what kind of community you are trying to create?

Democracy exists due to a need to resolve conflicts. Ideally, there would be no conflicts. A truly democratic project necessarily involves its own abolition eventually.

If the abolition of the State involves my being subject to the brute force of anarchic violence, I see no reason to involve myself in it.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

How is society equivalent to dictatorship?

How could I 'create a society' and then keep that society from breaking up without exercising massive authority? Without dictating to others in order to maintain my totalitarian construct?

Should I ask what kind of community you are trying to create?

None?

Democracy exists due to a need to resolve conflicts.

Democracy exists to enable rulers to maintain power hierarchies and absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

A truly democratic project necessarily involves its own abolition eventually.

Sounds a lot like the tankie 'withering away' of the state that never actually happens and instead results in more bureaucracy and more exploitation.

If the abolition of the State involves my being subject to the brute force of anarchic violence

You're basically saying you want law and order. That you don't trust people to manage themselves and think they need to be policed by a state construct.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

The democratic project has been distorted so as to secure power since its inception, but, I really don't think that people should be opposed to democracy in general.

The "withering away of the state" is not necessarily a Marxist-Leninist concept. It was developed by Engels.

I don't think that a participatory democratic project does or should involve the State. I don't think that human beings are by nature violent and need to be socially reformed if that's what you're suggesting. Power vaccums will be exploited by authoritarian types given the opportunity to do so. I do think that communities will need some form of bulwark against such things. I'm not sure that the immediate abolition of the democratic project is possible.

1

ziq wrote

The democratic project has been distorted so as to secure power since its inception, but, I really don't think that people should be opposed to democracy in general.

If something has only ever resulted in oppression every time its been done, why would you keep doing it?

The "withering away of the state" is not necessarily a Marxist-Leninist concept. It was developed by Engels.

Fuck Engels too; that white supremacist piece of shit.

I don't think that a participatory democratic project does or should involve the State.

States can have a lot of faces. Direct majority voter rule is still a state; just in a new form.

1

A_Lane OP wrote

My point was simply that while the "withering away of the State" is a Marxist concept that it is not necessarily a Marxist-Leninist concept. I actually think that the concept can be radically interpreted in the favor of Anarchist praxis.

I haven't necessarily advocated for direct majority voter rule. I just advocated participatory democracy. I honestly haven't yet parcelled out how it should effectively function.

I see the problem with the democratic project as being that it has been by in large insincere and not necessarily that there is a systemic problem with democracy in general.

What I still haven't figured out is how you expect for social relations to be carried out. How should communities decide upon matters in the absence of democracy?

1

ziq wrote

I actually think that the concept can be radically interpreted in the favor of Anarchist praxis.

A "temporary' state..?

How should communities decide upon matters in the absence of democracy?

w/democracy

2

A_Lane OP wrote

I have not argued in favor of a transitional program if that's what you're suggesting.

1

A_Lane OP wrote (edited )

Rather than answer my question, you could always just call me a "tankie" and then send me a link to your wall of text which still does not address it. While this does include a critique of direct democracy, it does not offer an alternative. What do you mean by "self determination"?

1

ziq wrote (edited )

It does address it or I wouldn't have linked you to it. Now you're just asking me to repeat myself. Here:

"Instead of a large group laboring to make democracy work so they can agree on a course of action, it would be far more productive for smaller groups made up of people with shared interests to splinter off and co-operate to follow their own plans that require no compromise because their interests are already aligned."

I don't know how to make my perspective clearer than that.

you could always just call me a "tankie"

When did I call you a tankie? I just pointed out your argument was no different than the 'withering away of the state' promise.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

How are the smaller groups to come to decisions other than through participatory democracy? I wasn't necessarily arguing for what could be considered to be Platformism, I guess. I think that there ought to be a loosely affiliated set of freely associated societies that decide upon matters through participatory democracy. Like I said, I haven't quite parcelled this all out yet.

1

ziq wrote

How are the smaller groups to come to decisions

By talking to each other.

2

A_Lane OP wrote

That effectively seems to be exactly what I mean by participatory democracy, though.

1