You must log in or register to comment.

keez wrote

Thoughts about Christiania in (within) Denmark?

They are pretty close to an anarchistic commune, but they have meetings where all have to agree for something to change.

If one person (who lives there) votes no to ending the open sale of cannabis, it wont happen.


train wrote

Concepts are mutable and democracy as an ideal is different that liberal representative democracy or democratic centralism. I define democracy as a equitable form of collecive decision making which could be implicit or explicit. I think anarchist ideas about how humans should interact with one another and deal with conflict falls unders that definition.

However, I understand words don't exist in a vacuum and democracy as word is often coopted by oppressive forces to legitimize their authority. So it makes sense to me that some anarchists are fine with using the word to express their intentions while others explicity reject it.


MC_Cookies wrote

i mean if you define democracy as freedom of action like some anarchists do then anarchism is by definition democratic, but like, that's not what democracy is, and democracy as a whole requires the existence of a government.

Anarchism provides more freedom than your standard direct democracy ever could because it removes the tyranny of the majority.


celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

if decisions must be reached by consensus, what is the point of making a decision at all? If something is meant to happen by consensus, it will happen organically, rather than within an artificial process like a vote or meeting.

If it cannot happen organically without a formal meeting, then perhaps there is not really consensus occurring. What is happening instead, is the implementation of invisible soft power, where those who are more comfortable expressing themselves invisibilize the rest of the community by contrivance and privilege.

if the meeting is not the implementation of power relationships, but simply a recognition of them, it is symbolic politics at its most redundant. if a meeting is an implementation of power relationships, it is not anarchist.

Meetings and votes, whether consensus or majoritarian, are anti-anarchist. CMV?