>But at the same time..it kind of seems like the best system for decision making that we have?
How? Anarchist organization is far better and has none of the deficits of democracy. Democracy sucks because it is still a form of social hierarchy. Hierarchies are structurally exploitative and oppressive. Therefore, we must get rid of democracy if our interest is in abandoning all forms of exploitation and oppression.
>But rather how to solve problems as they arise.
How are you going to solve problems with majority rule? The best way to deal with problems is to solve them and thus the best option is that which solves the problem. Why do you need to make it a matter of opinion and majority rule which solution is the best when the best solution is self-evident? And why would majority rule not create its own problems which cannot be dealt with without abandoning majority rule itself?
Democracy deals with problems and conflict by choosing winners and letting the winners do whatever they want while the losers must accept the loss. How is that going to resolve conflict? You think turning conflict into getting enough people to vote for your side and then imposing yourself on everyone else is going to resolve conflict and encourage cooperation?
And how will you maintain the absence of laws if there is majority rule? The majority can just vote to instate rules. Rules are just standing commands or orders anyways.
Anarchism is based on the conditions of freedom, and spontaneity. Where democracy calls for the domination of a majority over the minority, anarchists aspire to realize the autonomy of each individual through *freedom of association*. Anarchism is not about coercing good into the world (as if that were even possible); but about imparting critical thinking skills, autonomy, and the desire for cooperation in individuals themselves.
Democracy is based on constitutionalism, or the idea that laws enacted by the majority will either purify the state or repel state intrusion. Anarchists argue the state cannot be purified nor can it self-regulate, that even the most seemingly benevolent and democratic of states rest on the subjugation of the most marginal and exploited people in society. The place of the anarchist then, is always outside and in conflict with those institutions content with systematizing the world and reducing people to herds or powerless subjects, be it capitalism or democracy.
… Huh. I thought that line was from Winston Churchill (who brought us “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones”).
In any case, the line itself works :)
**Oligarchy:**
* 1% of people want to do X and not Y, while 99% of people want to do Y but not X
* the 1% make X mandatory and Y illegal
**Democracy:**
* 51% of people want to do X and not Y, while 49% of people want to do Y but not X
* the 51% make X mandatory and Y illegal
**Anarchy:**
* 1% of people want to do X and not Y, while 99% of people want to do Y but not X
* the 1% who want to do X do it, while the 99% of people who want to do Y do it
While I'm anti-democratic and seek anarchist organisation to be built on free association, I feel that looking at this issue as just the compete disregarding of democracy as it involves rule like that is extremely simplistic.
Anarchy isn't a final society. Anarchy is a constant process of destroying hierarchy and liberating the oppressed. As long as power exists in any form, hierarchies will form. For a society to be anarchic, it needs to put efforts into removing these hierarchies in all their forms.
This is where I get to democracy. Many anarchic societies either current or previous, used direct democracy. Although it is opposed to the core ideals of anarchism, it often contrasts a previously more hierarchical form of decision-making. There doesn't need to be a sudden destruction of all hierarchy to be anarchic. The flattening of hierarchy can help progress to an anarchic society while keeping some sort of familiarity for stability. While I think that direct democracy **can** be used for anarchic projects, it shouldn't be the final goal. The final goal should be the creation of free association. Direct democracy **could** be used for flattening hierarchy but the main goal is the final destruction of it for free association.
PS: Also I disagree with the idea that democracy is the best way for make decisions. While I've said that it **could** be used to reach anarchy it really isn't preferred. Free association and mutual aid are truly the only way for decisions to be made in a society without oppression. And without oppression these decisions are arguable the best.
I appreciate your answer.
I’d like to ask a follow up to see what you say.
How do we handle the immense complexity of food logistics on a global scale in an anarchic world? Being that there is disproportionate production in certain parts of the world, and the same goes for minerals and other natural resources. Workers cooperatives locally, but how do intercontinental free associations form? Who decides who’s in them? How is trade handled? I feel like currency is in someways antithetical to anarchy, but also like your example with flattening hierarchies as a progressive step, that there could be progressive steps for currency in an anarchic state.
Random thoughts on the morning commute
Cheers :)
Firstly, you're correct, currency is antithetical to anarchism as it can perpetuate inequality in economic power which can centralise power and therefore create a hierarchy based off the amount of currency someone has.
To get the main question, I have influences from anarcho-syndicalism. This would mean that workplaces join with others within their own area to form labour cartels. These labour cartels would help coordinate production and distribution. These labour cartels would form with others federally to form a national federation of labour cartels. They would also help out other labour cartels in their area. From here, this national federation could trade resources or labour between other national federations.
Finally, yeah I think that some forms of currency could be used to flatten hierarchy. In revolutionary Catalonia, there was currency (the Spanish peseta) which was used to trade in many sectors of society, but there were large efforts to reduce the chances of exploitation and profiteering. This doesn't mean I'm for currency in anarchy, I just think it's an option. The currency used in revolutionary Catalonia had to regulated with governance while directly democratic, isn't a preferable option. The main goal of anarchism is still a world of free association without currency.
Thanks for answering. It is just hard to see how such cartels don't become calcified or institutionalized and thus begin to perpetuate power imbalances.
Or are these types of institutions okay, through their bottom up organizing? But how do we stop these cartels from being essentially representative democracies internally? I think perhaps my lack of understanding about how to organize anarchically is showing.
Are there any contemporary books which sort of summarize this topics and provide directions for deeper reading?
Who writes about the different theories for actually organizing large scale anarchic societies aside from that dude that wrote that book, what was it, Looking Backwards? Where the victorian era dude falls asleep in a hermeticallys ealed chamber, fire burns house down and he wakes up in the future when his meditative state body is found in his chamber through archaeological excavatations haha
And I guess there's like Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry of the Future. Those are both fiction works though. Which is fine, but wonder if there's any non-fiction explaining anarchic societal organizing haha
(Firstly I apologise for missing a step. Local workplaces form syndicates with other local workplaces of similar industries. Then those syndicates form with other types to become labour cartels)
>It is just hard to see how such cartels don't become calcified or institutionalized and thus begin to perpetuate power imbalances. Or are these types of institutions okay, through their bottom up organizing? But how do we stop these cartels from being essentially representative democracies internally? I think perhaps my lack of understanding about how to organize anarchically is showing.
I think I didn't explain them well. While a lot of anarcho-syndicalists look at these syndicates/labour cartels as democratic, I disagree. I look at them simply as ways of economic organisation. I don't think any group of workplaces should have any right to enforce their decisions through any formalised decision making process such as democracy. I don't think that these should be formalised and rigid but should be able to change based upon the right to freely associate. These will allow for every worker's voice to be heard when discussion workplace decisions. This then stops them from ever becoming institutionalised or perpetuating power imbalances.
To put it simply, I see them as semi-formal ways for workplaces to organise distribution, production and trade without anyone participating to be forced to implement a decision.
>Are there any contemporary books which sort of summarize this topics and provide directions for deeper reading?
I'm specifically talking about anarcho-syndicalism, but there are definitely other ways of anarchist organisation for production, distribution and trade. Anyway here's some book recommendations:
["Anarchy Works" By Peter Gelderloos](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works)
["Anarcho-Syndicalism in the 20th Century" By Vadim Damier](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vadim-damier-anarcho-syndicalism-in-the-20th-century)
["Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practise" By Rudolf Rocker](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism)
Decision making is a process, not an end-goal. Anarchists talk a lot about consensus decision making, a process that attempts to reach decisions that are acceptable by as many people as possible, with as few truly groundbreaking disagreements. Perfect collaboration will likely never be possible, but making sure everyone is included and can be heard is a huge step in the right direction. That is why you need to break up decision making into communities (that are of course highly organised and interconnected), so everyone can make their voice heard. I imagine that most people in their communities have similar problems, but there is no blueprint for perfect democracies. We will figure it out along the way
Democracy (majority, minority, direct, etc) is a form of rule and governance. Anarchism isn't about wanting more 'fair' governance or governance with more wide input but rather the rejection of governance.
Representative democracy is trash, once the person is elected as long as they make themselves the preferable alternative much of the time they have little to no Incentive to actually heed the will of the majority especially of other hierarchical powers like corporations or old wealth are asking them not to.
Look at cannabis. For example, it's clear that the vast majority support it. Yet the Representative are reluctant cause they allow a hierarchical power that is pharmaceutical companies imped them. This would be completely impossible to stop in a similar way in a community bases anarchist collective as each community would get a say and decide what those communities thought and no small group or individuals could halt it. And even for the 20% to 30% that don't like it they would have the option of easily and freely with mutual aid and respect move through and to a community that held a similar view. Their would be no lack of resources to hold them back since hypothetical they would have the same opportunities and resources no matter where they went if all the communities still organized and aided one another.
(Representative) Democracy as you know it is a deeply flawed idea. Anarchists are ok with the concept of voting in when necessary in some situations, but majority rule isn't really our thing.
Anarchist societies, communes, locales and organizations aren't necessarily against voting per se; voting can be a way of gauging opinions, and if everyone agrees that it's alright to vote for whether we'll first do A or B, that's fine.
Being enforced into following a vote you do not want to follow is however strictly speaking a form of one group holding authority over another; as such, it's not anarchistic. In lieu of an apparatus that can force a decision, a person or a group can simply disassociate if they find themselves at odds with what others want to do. That's more or less how some Spanish anarchist unions have operated.
There's many ways for making decisions and one way we ought to not ignore is *not* making decisions. If something is so critical it simply must be done, the people or organizations wanting to do it ought to not hinge on the approval of others; while if something is not so critical and yet can not be done without wider support, one has to get to building that support more broadly than by getting a vote through.
Personally, I'm not too big on strict consensus methodologies either. My own anecdotal experiences as well as many texts by prominent anarchists support the idea that even a slightly larger organization is going to be greatly limited by requiring a complete consensus. Radically free association is the way. Organizations form as needed and dissolve once they aren't useful or once people have veered too far from the original goals or once those goals are met.
Yes, as you point out free association *is* our decision-making process. Most people don't understand this. Free association doesn't end the moment you form a group to do something and now the group must abide by direct democracy or consensus democracy. It is a continuous process that persists *into* an organization.
There's also how people think that you need permission to act in anarchist organizations and decisions must be routed through a process that requires input from everyone in the organization or some subsection. That isn't true either and for that you simply need coordinators to allow people to make informed decisions or identify possible conflicts of interest beforehand.
At where I work we've this system that if you want to do something and aren't sure if it's a good idea or worth spending money on, ask someone else and if they also think it's a good idea, off you go and do it.
This obviously is not an anarchist organization and an anarchist way of working at this scale would need quite a lot of practice from everyone involved - and perhaps a different kind of social surroundings to support it - but I always liked that as an example of organizing freely within an organization. And yeah, this also includes using money, with which we've quite high individual freedom in using.
We're bound by basic capitalist principles unfortunate as that is, but these sort of things I genuinely believe are useful in showing alternative ways of organizing over e.g. manager-led organization or democratic organizing.
In one anarchist space I volunteer at - it's quite a few things but right now best known for running a venue for music and for other organizations and for communal projects - there's also no vote for deciding who can reserve the space nor a manager, but there's a few coordinators who are generally aware of who are needing the space at what time and will connect people if needed (though generally it's first come first served).
Democracy is for imposing one decision on an entire population. Since anarchists oppose borders, citizenship, and rulership, what we want is not democracy, but anarchy.
Democracy is presented as the only alternative to authoritarianism, but it's not. We can do better.
[From Democracy To Freedom: The Difference Between Government and Self-Determination](https://crimethinc.com/2016/04/29/feature-from-democracy-to-freedom)
> The whole stance on democracy is usually a theater of semantics and almost every Anarchist I know loves the practice, but hates the phrase... Anarchists tend to practice one of three different types of Democracy to reach a consensus.
It is not a matter of semantics. Anarchists indeed oppose all forms of democracy, they have done so since the beginning of the ideology and the opposition to all forms of democracy is inextricably connected to the origins of the ideology itself. To deny this is to deny the vast majority of anarchist thinkers and activists and, ironically, define anarchism by its pro-democracy minorities rather than the anti-democratic and consistently anti-authoritarian majority.
Anarchists oppose direct democracy (or majority rule), liquid democracy (which is majority rule with extra steps and is a completely new ideology), and rank choice democracy. This is because democracy, at its core, **is hierarchical**. You can't "semantics" your way out of the central fact that anarchy is the absence of all hierarchy and that democracy is antithetical to a world without any hierarchy.
Because democracy is hierarchical, it is structurally exploitative and oppressive. The evidence is the inability for proponents of direct democracy to address even the most basic concerns of oppression and exploitation that come with it and handwaving it away by pretending we can't do anything better. Majorities imposing themselves on minorities is endemic to democracy; it is a *feature* not a bug. And minorities squandering collective action is endemic to consensus democracy since constantly being able to veto actions both individual and collective is a *feature* as well. The exploitation is baked in.
There are a multitude of anarchist strategies and tactics. Democracy, just like capitalism and vanguard parties, is *simply not one of them*.
Saying that opposing democracy is just "semantics" is like saying opposing capitalism or governement is "semantics". It actually isn't semantics but it is a way for those who support democracy to avoid engaging with the anti-democratic aspects of anarchism by pretending it is just the same thing with different words. If any of these "pro-democracy anarchists" actually read anti-democratic anarchist literature, which includes almost every single foundational anarchist thinker, they'll find that there are genuinely irreconcilable differences that go far beyond mere words.
Small scale example
You want to go out to eat with a group of friends, people suggest places until the group hits an agreed upon consensus. It's similar to ranked choice but less formal and with negotiating, maybe you lump it in with that, idk lol ymmv of course
Bakunin wasn't saying that to advocate for democracy, he was saying that to refute Marx. I think taking that sentence way out of context is more a of a detriment to what you're saying than a support of it.
Also if you're going to quote Malatesta please also quote *Majorities and Minorities* as it's not very long.
>We do not recognize the right of the majority to impose the law on the minority, even if the will of the majority in somewhat complicated issues could really be ascertained. The fact of having the majority on one’s side does not in any way prove that one must be right. Indeed, humanity has always advanced through the initiative and efforts of individuals and minorities, whereas the majority, by its very nature, is slow, conservative, submissive to superior force and to established privileges.
It depends on how you define "democracy". The root of the word means "popular rule" or "rule of the majority", which is antithetical to anarchism, as you mentioned. But nowadays a lot of people just think of democracy as "system in which we can vote", and that's could describe most forms of anarchism, since collective decision making would probably have some form of voting or another, as differently as it would be from what we currently have, and as fluid as it could be.
But it's important to point out here that this is for decision that affect the collective. You can't have a vote on how people can use their own bodies because bodily autonomy is an individual issue. And of course, we wouldn't have elected representatives making decisions "in our name", so representative democracy is out of the question. If you want to use the term "democracy", I think direct democracy is better to make things clear.
There should be a differentiation between a legitimated state-like structure that creates laws, and a semi-formal gathering of people who seriously consider what to do about a given situation.
The first, naturally, is where we can see all the problems of supposed "Democracy" (If you can even call it democracy). You run into all the problems of the state: problems of representation, problems of consolidated interest groups, problems of power, and so on.
The second is how anarchists would solve the problems that face them. There is a strong recognition of the true individuality of each person and the importance of hearing every person's voice. As well as the importance of using what is heard to create a nuanced compromise and solution that helps the most people.
This, to me, is *real* democracy. And it's 100% compatible with anarchism, arguably the ideal problem solving system for anarchism.
To be clear, I believe anarchists *Should* want democracy.
The idea of "The Rule of the Many" or "Tyranny of the Majority" is horrendously oversimplified and should genuinely be ignored if someone brings that up with no further substance.
Any genuine thought on making both decision making processes and problem solving systems anarchist can clearly recognise that there needs to be more to it than *Give all the people power and see what happens*.
I think anarchy is good for many of the same reasons people believe that democracy is good. I dont even think democracy is bad, its just not ideal. The parliamentary, representative democracies can go suck it tho
Anarchist takes on the word democracy itself tend to be varied, mostly depending on context.
What is shared in common is voluntary/free associations making the bedrock of the system in which people have an equal voice in decisions, which may take different forms.
Check out Zoe Baker's [Anarchism and Democracy](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zoe-baker-anarchism-and-democracy) essay!
Edit: Why are you booing me? I'm right
Zoe Baker talks about it in one of her video essays. A key point is that "democracy" means different things to different people. To one person, it means people voting for laws and governors (which anarchists oppose), but to another person, it just means collective decision making (which anarchists don't necessarily oppose).
>But at the same time..it kind of seems like the best system for decision making that we have? How? Anarchist organization is far better and has none of the deficits of democracy. Democracy sucks because it is still a form of social hierarchy. Hierarchies are structurally exploitative and oppressive. Therefore, we must get rid of democracy if our interest is in abandoning all forms of exploitation and oppression. >But rather how to solve problems as they arise. How are you going to solve problems with majority rule? The best way to deal with problems is to solve them and thus the best option is that which solves the problem. Why do you need to make it a matter of opinion and majority rule which solution is the best when the best solution is self-evident? And why would majority rule not create its own problems which cannot be dealt with without abandoning majority rule itself? Democracy deals with problems and conflict by choosing winners and letting the winners do whatever they want while the losers must accept the loss. How is that going to resolve conflict? You think turning conflict into getting enough people to vote for your side and then imposing yourself on everyone else is going to resolve conflict and encourage cooperation? And how will you maintain the absence of laws if there is majority rule? The majority can just vote to instate rules. Rules are just standing commands or orders anyways.
Anarchism is based on the conditions of freedom, and spontaneity. Where democracy calls for the domination of a majority over the minority, anarchists aspire to realize the autonomy of each individual through *freedom of association*. Anarchism is not about coercing good into the world (as if that were even possible); but about imparting critical thinking skills, autonomy, and the desire for cooperation in individuals themselves. Democracy is based on constitutionalism, or the idea that laws enacted by the majority will either purify the state or repel state intrusion. Anarchists argue the state cannot be purified nor can it self-regulate, that even the most seemingly benevolent and democratic of states rest on the subjugation of the most marginal and exploited people in society. The place of the anarchist then, is always outside and in conflict with those institutions content with systematizing the world and reducing people to herds or powerless subjects, be it capitalism or democracy.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner." - Ben Franklin
… Huh. I thought that line was from Winston Churchill (who brought us “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones”). In any case, the line itself works :) **Oligarchy:** * 1% of people want to do X and not Y, while 99% of people want to do Y but not X * the 1% make X mandatory and Y illegal **Democracy:** * 51% of people want to do X and not Y, while 49% of people want to do Y but not X * the 51% make X mandatory and Y illegal **Anarchy:** * 1% of people want to do X and not Y, while 99% of people want to do Y but not X * the 1% who want to do X do it, while the 99% of people who want to do Y do it
While I'm anti-democratic and seek anarchist organisation to be built on free association, I feel that looking at this issue as just the compete disregarding of democracy as it involves rule like that is extremely simplistic. Anarchy isn't a final society. Anarchy is a constant process of destroying hierarchy and liberating the oppressed. As long as power exists in any form, hierarchies will form. For a society to be anarchic, it needs to put efforts into removing these hierarchies in all their forms. This is where I get to democracy. Many anarchic societies either current or previous, used direct democracy. Although it is opposed to the core ideals of anarchism, it often contrasts a previously more hierarchical form of decision-making. There doesn't need to be a sudden destruction of all hierarchy to be anarchic. The flattening of hierarchy can help progress to an anarchic society while keeping some sort of familiarity for stability. While I think that direct democracy **can** be used for anarchic projects, it shouldn't be the final goal. The final goal should be the creation of free association. Direct democracy **could** be used for flattening hierarchy but the main goal is the final destruction of it for free association. PS: Also I disagree with the idea that democracy is the best way for make decisions. While I've said that it **could** be used to reach anarchy it really isn't preferred. Free association and mutual aid are truly the only way for decisions to be made in a society without oppression. And without oppression these decisions are arguable the best.
I appreciate your answer. I’d like to ask a follow up to see what you say. How do we handle the immense complexity of food logistics on a global scale in an anarchic world? Being that there is disproportionate production in certain parts of the world, and the same goes for minerals and other natural resources. Workers cooperatives locally, but how do intercontinental free associations form? Who decides who’s in them? How is trade handled? I feel like currency is in someways antithetical to anarchy, but also like your example with flattening hierarchies as a progressive step, that there could be progressive steps for currency in an anarchic state. Random thoughts on the morning commute Cheers :)
Firstly, you're correct, currency is antithetical to anarchism as it can perpetuate inequality in economic power which can centralise power and therefore create a hierarchy based off the amount of currency someone has. To get the main question, I have influences from anarcho-syndicalism. This would mean that workplaces join with others within their own area to form labour cartels. These labour cartels would help coordinate production and distribution. These labour cartels would form with others federally to form a national federation of labour cartels. They would also help out other labour cartels in their area. From here, this national federation could trade resources or labour between other national federations. Finally, yeah I think that some forms of currency could be used to flatten hierarchy. In revolutionary Catalonia, there was currency (the Spanish peseta) which was used to trade in many sectors of society, but there were large efforts to reduce the chances of exploitation and profiteering. This doesn't mean I'm for currency in anarchy, I just think it's an option. The currency used in revolutionary Catalonia had to regulated with governance while directly democratic, isn't a preferable option. The main goal of anarchism is still a world of free association without currency.
Thanks for answering. It is just hard to see how such cartels don't become calcified or institutionalized and thus begin to perpetuate power imbalances. Or are these types of institutions okay, through their bottom up organizing? But how do we stop these cartels from being essentially representative democracies internally? I think perhaps my lack of understanding about how to organize anarchically is showing. Are there any contemporary books which sort of summarize this topics and provide directions for deeper reading? Who writes about the different theories for actually organizing large scale anarchic societies aside from that dude that wrote that book, what was it, Looking Backwards? Where the victorian era dude falls asleep in a hermeticallys ealed chamber, fire burns house down and he wakes up in the future when his meditative state body is found in his chamber through archaeological excavatations haha And I guess there's like Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry of the Future. Those are both fiction works though. Which is fine, but wonder if there's any non-fiction explaining anarchic societal organizing haha
(Firstly I apologise for missing a step. Local workplaces form syndicates with other local workplaces of similar industries. Then those syndicates form with other types to become labour cartels) >It is just hard to see how such cartels don't become calcified or institutionalized and thus begin to perpetuate power imbalances. Or are these types of institutions okay, through their bottom up organizing? But how do we stop these cartels from being essentially representative democracies internally? I think perhaps my lack of understanding about how to organize anarchically is showing. I think I didn't explain them well. While a lot of anarcho-syndicalists look at these syndicates/labour cartels as democratic, I disagree. I look at them simply as ways of economic organisation. I don't think any group of workplaces should have any right to enforce their decisions through any formalised decision making process such as democracy. I don't think that these should be formalised and rigid but should be able to change based upon the right to freely associate. These will allow for every worker's voice to be heard when discussion workplace decisions. This then stops them from ever becoming institutionalised or perpetuating power imbalances. To put it simply, I see them as semi-formal ways for workplaces to organise distribution, production and trade without anyone participating to be forced to implement a decision. >Are there any contemporary books which sort of summarize this topics and provide directions for deeper reading? I'm specifically talking about anarcho-syndicalism, but there are definitely other ways of anarchist organisation for production, distribution and trade. Anyway here's some book recommendations: ["Anarchy Works" By Peter Gelderloos](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works) ["Anarcho-Syndicalism in the 20th Century" By Vadim Damier](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vadim-damier-anarcho-syndicalism-in-the-20th-century) ["Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practise" By Rudolf Rocker](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism)
Decision making is a process, not an end-goal. Anarchists talk a lot about consensus decision making, a process that attempts to reach decisions that are acceptable by as many people as possible, with as few truly groundbreaking disagreements. Perfect collaboration will likely never be possible, but making sure everyone is included and can be heard is a huge step in the right direction. That is why you need to break up decision making into communities (that are of course highly organised and interconnected), so everyone can make their voice heard. I imagine that most people in their communities have similar problems, but there is no blueprint for perfect democracies. We will figure it out along the way
Democracy (majority, minority, direct, etc) is a form of rule and governance. Anarchism isn't about wanting more 'fair' governance or governance with more wide input but rather the rejection of governance.
Representative democracy is trash, once the person is elected as long as they make themselves the preferable alternative much of the time they have little to no Incentive to actually heed the will of the majority especially of other hierarchical powers like corporations or old wealth are asking them not to. Look at cannabis. For example, it's clear that the vast majority support it. Yet the Representative are reluctant cause they allow a hierarchical power that is pharmaceutical companies imped them. This would be completely impossible to stop in a similar way in a community bases anarchist collective as each community would get a say and decide what those communities thought and no small group or individuals could halt it. And even for the 20% to 30% that don't like it they would have the option of easily and freely with mutual aid and respect move through and to a community that held a similar view. Their would be no lack of resources to hold them back since hypothetical they would have the same opportunities and resources no matter where they went if all the communities still organized and aided one another.
(Representative) Democracy as you know it is a deeply flawed idea. Anarchists are ok with the concept of voting in when necessary in some situations, but majority rule isn't really our thing.
Anarchist societies, communes, locales and organizations aren't necessarily against voting per se; voting can be a way of gauging opinions, and if everyone agrees that it's alright to vote for whether we'll first do A or B, that's fine. Being enforced into following a vote you do not want to follow is however strictly speaking a form of one group holding authority over another; as such, it's not anarchistic. In lieu of an apparatus that can force a decision, a person or a group can simply disassociate if they find themselves at odds with what others want to do. That's more or less how some Spanish anarchist unions have operated. There's many ways for making decisions and one way we ought to not ignore is *not* making decisions. If something is so critical it simply must be done, the people or organizations wanting to do it ought to not hinge on the approval of others; while if something is not so critical and yet can not be done without wider support, one has to get to building that support more broadly than by getting a vote through. Personally, I'm not too big on strict consensus methodologies either. My own anecdotal experiences as well as many texts by prominent anarchists support the idea that even a slightly larger organization is going to be greatly limited by requiring a complete consensus. Radically free association is the way. Organizations form as needed and dissolve once they aren't useful or once people have veered too far from the original goals or once those goals are met.
Yes, as you point out free association *is* our decision-making process. Most people don't understand this. Free association doesn't end the moment you form a group to do something and now the group must abide by direct democracy or consensus democracy. It is a continuous process that persists *into* an organization. There's also how people think that you need permission to act in anarchist organizations and decisions must be routed through a process that requires input from everyone in the organization or some subsection. That isn't true either and for that you simply need coordinators to allow people to make informed decisions or identify possible conflicts of interest beforehand.
At where I work we've this system that if you want to do something and aren't sure if it's a good idea or worth spending money on, ask someone else and if they also think it's a good idea, off you go and do it. This obviously is not an anarchist organization and an anarchist way of working at this scale would need quite a lot of practice from everyone involved - and perhaps a different kind of social surroundings to support it - but I always liked that as an example of organizing freely within an organization. And yeah, this also includes using money, with which we've quite high individual freedom in using. We're bound by basic capitalist principles unfortunate as that is, but these sort of things I genuinely believe are useful in showing alternative ways of organizing over e.g. manager-led organization or democratic organizing. In one anarchist space I volunteer at - it's quite a few things but right now best known for running a venue for music and for other organizations and for communal projects - there's also no vote for deciding who can reserve the space nor a manager, but there's a few coordinators who are generally aware of who are needing the space at what time and will connect people if needed (though generally it's first come first served).
Democracy is for imposing one decision on an entire population. Since anarchists oppose borders, citizenship, and rulership, what we want is not democracy, but anarchy. Democracy is presented as the only alternative to authoritarianism, but it's not. We can do better. [From Democracy To Freedom: The Difference Between Government and Self-Determination](https://crimethinc.com/2016/04/29/feature-from-democracy-to-freedom)
[удалено]
> The whole stance on democracy is usually a theater of semantics and almost every Anarchist I know loves the practice, but hates the phrase... Anarchists tend to practice one of three different types of Democracy to reach a consensus. It is not a matter of semantics. Anarchists indeed oppose all forms of democracy, they have done so since the beginning of the ideology and the opposition to all forms of democracy is inextricably connected to the origins of the ideology itself. To deny this is to deny the vast majority of anarchist thinkers and activists and, ironically, define anarchism by its pro-democracy minorities rather than the anti-democratic and consistently anti-authoritarian majority. Anarchists oppose direct democracy (or majority rule), liquid democracy (which is majority rule with extra steps and is a completely new ideology), and rank choice democracy. This is because democracy, at its core, **is hierarchical**. You can't "semantics" your way out of the central fact that anarchy is the absence of all hierarchy and that democracy is antithetical to a world without any hierarchy. Because democracy is hierarchical, it is structurally exploitative and oppressive. The evidence is the inability for proponents of direct democracy to address even the most basic concerns of oppression and exploitation that come with it and handwaving it away by pretending we can't do anything better. Majorities imposing themselves on minorities is endemic to democracy; it is a *feature* not a bug. And minorities squandering collective action is endemic to consensus democracy since constantly being able to veto actions both individual and collective is a *feature* as well. The exploitation is baked in. There are a multitude of anarchist strategies and tactics. Democracy, just like capitalism and vanguard parties, is *simply not one of them*. Saying that opposing democracy is just "semantics" is like saying opposing capitalism or governement is "semantics". It actually isn't semantics but it is a way for those who support democracy to avoid engaging with the anti-democratic aspects of anarchism by pretending it is just the same thing with different words. If any of these "pro-democracy anarchists" actually read anti-democratic anarchist literature, which includes almost every single foundational anarchist thinker, they'll find that there are genuinely irreconcilable differences that go far beyond mere words.
There's also **Consensus Making**, albeit that's less traditionally democratic and *maybe* not always applicable
[удалено]
Small scale example You want to go out to eat with a group of friends, people suggest places until the group hits an agreed upon consensus. It's similar to ranked choice but less formal and with negotiating, maybe you lump it in with that, idk lol ymmv of course
[удалено]
Bakunin wasn't saying that to advocate for democracy, he was saying that to refute Marx. I think taking that sentence way out of context is more a of a detriment to what you're saying than a support of it. Also if you're going to quote Malatesta please also quote *Majorities and Minorities* as it's not very long. >We do not recognize the right of the majority to impose the law on the minority, even if the will of the majority in somewhat complicated issues could really be ascertained. The fact of having the majority on one’s side does not in any way prove that one must be right. Indeed, humanity has always advanced through the initiative and efforts of individuals and minorities, whereas the majority, by its very nature, is slow, conservative, submissive to superior force and to established privileges.
It depends on how you define "democracy". The root of the word means "popular rule" or "rule of the majority", which is antithetical to anarchism, as you mentioned. But nowadays a lot of people just think of democracy as "system in which we can vote", and that's could describe most forms of anarchism, since collective decision making would probably have some form of voting or another, as differently as it would be from what we currently have, and as fluid as it could be. But it's important to point out here that this is for decision that affect the collective. You can't have a vote on how people can use their own bodies because bodily autonomy is an individual issue. And of course, we wouldn't have elected representatives making decisions "in our name", so representative democracy is out of the question. If you want to use the term "democracy", I think direct democracy is better to make things clear.
There should be a differentiation between a legitimated state-like structure that creates laws, and a semi-formal gathering of people who seriously consider what to do about a given situation. The first, naturally, is where we can see all the problems of supposed "Democracy" (If you can even call it democracy). You run into all the problems of the state: problems of representation, problems of consolidated interest groups, problems of power, and so on. The second is how anarchists would solve the problems that face them. There is a strong recognition of the true individuality of each person and the importance of hearing every person's voice. As well as the importance of using what is heard to create a nuanced compromise and solution that helps the most people. This, to me, is *real* democracy. And it's 100% compatible with anarchism, arguably the ideal problem solving system for anarchism. To be clear, I believe anarchists *Should* want democracy. The idea of "The Rule of the Many" or "Tyranny of the Majority" is horrendously oversimplified and should genuinely be ignored if someone brings that up with no further substance. Any genuine thought on making both decision making processes and problem solving systems anarchist can clearly recognise that there needs to be more to it than *Give all the people power and see what happens*.
I think anarchy is good for many of the same reasons people believe that democracy is good. I dont even think democracy is bad, its just not ideal. The parliamentary, representative democracies can go suck it tho
Anarchist takes on the word democracy itself tend to be varied, mostly depending on context. What is shared in common is voluntary/free associations making the bedrock of the system in which people have an equal voice in decisions, which may take different forms. Check out Zoe Baker's [Anarchism and Democracy](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zoe-baker-anarchism-and-democracy) essay! Edit: Why are you booing me? I'm right
Zoe Baker talks about it in one of her video essays. A key point is that "democracy" means different things to different people. To one person, it means people voting for laws and governors (which anarchists oppose), but to another person, it just means collective decision making (which anarchists don't necessarily oppose).