Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blowbelow OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by ziq in My boring introduction by blowbelow

I think if an ideology makes allowances for government (even going as far as preventing people from withdrawing while enforcing majority rule enacted via assemblies), it's always going to result in government. It's a blueprint for forming a government; for ruling a society and forcing the government's will on the individual.

As I was saying earlier, it would be perfectly possible to create assembly's which are voluntary. In fact, that's what I (and many other Communalists) advocate for. Of course this isn't always the case, but I'm suggesting that this is totally possible and in most cases preferable.

They're really not anarchism though

I think this comes down to definitions. My understanding of Anarchism is (put simply) “without rulers” or in other words the abolition of unjust hierarchies, and unjust hierarchies are not necessary for forming a polity- something which I believe to be important for any large scale Anarchist/Libertarian projects.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

There's no such thing as a just hierarchy and that's not an anarchist position. If Murray admitted his system couldn't be voluntary, idk why any communalist would ignore that reality. Democracy can't be voluntary or no one will accept any democratic mandate they don't like. Communalism adopted on a wide scale is just representative democracy with language that tries to obscure that simple reality.

https://raddle.me/f/okbookchin/145351/in-libertarian-municipalism-bookchin-explained-an-exclusive

Bookchin understood democracy even if a lot of his acolytes are still in denial.

3