About democracy

49 posts / 0 new
Last post
anon (not verified)
About democracy

Democracy is not a popular concept or suggestion , it’s by excellence a proposal of the elite , directed at the masses in order to deprive them of any cause to revolt or disobey . It’s just another elitist way to say to the masses that they are been properly, fairly or rightly governed, because they are governed by one of their nation ( Nationalism ) , or one of their class ( Marxism ) , or their religion ( Theocratic state or government ) , or that the masses can “select” , or even “change” , their rulers every few years . Social contact , especially the democratic one , is not between people themselves , it’s between the rulers and ruled , it says that the masses can expect some “fair” repression , that’s not as brutal as in non-democratic states , the examples of North Korea and Stalin are the preferred ones by the capitalist mass media , a repression that could be justified by the “common welfare” or common good of the whole society , but what’s fair here is decided by the representatives and ideologues of the ruling class or elite as it suits it . Democracy is never ever a way that a “people” can govern itself , vice versa : it’s a way how a people can be governed with the least expected disobedience and troubles . On the other side , there is a wide spread misconception about the welfare state that attributes a lot of hypothetical and imaginary qualities to such a state that “takes care” of its subjects , the truth is totally the opposite, there was , is , and won’t exist a state that is feeding its subjects , it’s always the subjects who feed it and its ranks, officials and generals

Mazen kamalmaz

anon (not verified)
Democracy is generally a

Democracy is generally a mechanism for ratifying preexisting power relations. It’s therefore no more a coincidence that it’s found most often in rich countries than it’s paradoxical for institutions like North Korea and the Catholic Church to hold elections. Democracy is at the core of rhetoric promoting massive investment in the Ukraine proxy war, despite the often noted decay of democracy in western countries and the lack of democracy in Ukraine itself, not to mention democracies’ long track record of enacting genocidal policies and invading smaller countries.

anon (not verified)
Wording is important, and

Wording is important, and that's why I'm glad you used the word "general", because democracy is a quantitative call, it works okay for small gatherings but in rich national power relationships it results in toxic repercussions.

anon (not verified)
Does it work okay? What even

Does it work okay? What even does democracy mean- majoritarianism, consensus or something else? Another deep rooted problem with democracy (as with “anarchism” and other” spooky” abstract ideological concepts) is that it’s idealistic but ambiguous. In democracy particularly the question of mechanics and calculations is always crucial and always troublesome: who gets to vote, and on what, and then who counts, and so on? Pretty soon you have the classic three branch system (making the rules, enforcing the rules, and checking whether the first two parts are working together well.) Look at all the procedural dysfunction besetting various democracies today. I think this is more of a feature than a bug, since modern democracy- even liberal democracy- has been for the past century been defined not only by its perpetuation of colonial powers but by its willingness to collaborate with actual fascists in order to ward off any anti capitalist threat. As crises cyclically afflict the economy, the vagueness and weakness of democracy allows for bringing the storm troopers back whenever needed.

As a cardinal political value of the world most of us grew up in, democracy has infused the strategic thinking of many anarchists. Even militant nihilism often veils an inability to think beyond the quantitative accumulation of acts of “contagious” revolt, democrats beyond democracy.

Wayne Price (not verified)
Democracy is/isn't Anarchism

The word "democracy" is a vague and unclear term, used in contradictory ways. Sort of like "freedom" or "Christianity" or "anarchy." Previous commenters seem to stick to the meaning of "democracy" as signifying the existing bourgeois-representative states. While these are easier to live in than under Stalinist or fascist totalitarianism, they still enforce the rule of a capitalist minority and we anarchists are in revolutionary opposition to them.

But "democracy" can also be used to mean collective self-management, people running their own affairs as a group (small or large). Historically, aristocrats and the rich condemned "democracy" as meaning "mob rule." In much of the world today it is still a revolutionary concept. In my opinion, whether a face-to-face direct democracy uses consensus or majority rule (with rights for minorities) is a technical question, to be decided by the people involved, not a matter of definition.

If everyone participates in "governing," then there is no government. Extreme democracy is anarchy. Some (not all) US anarchists (of various schools) have been openly for "democracy". This includes David Graeber, Paul Goodman, Cindy Milstein, Murray Bookchin, David Wieck, Kevin Carson, and, well, me. In practice, even anarchists who do not use the term "democracy" still advocate collective self-management, called by other terms (i.e. autogestion). It becomes a linguistic issue, not a real difference.

anon (not verified)
Words are interesting, aren't

Words are interesting, aren't they?

"anarchy": an- (“not” or “without”) + archos ("rulers"). Therefore, anarchy is without rulers.

"democracy" is another fun one when you break it down, but basically it's authoritarian and the opposite of anarchy.

Too bad Wayne still doesn't understand any of this. Probably because he was so busy supporting States and their many Wars leaving him too little time to study basic word meanings?

"anus": an- (“not” or “without”) + us ("we"). Therefore, anus is "without us".

Pee pee poo poo!

anon (not verified)
“But "democracy" can also be

“But "democracy" can also be used to mean collective self-management, people running their own affairs as a group (small or large)“

This seems to be your personal definition? Historically democracy means representative government and it goes hand in hand with rule by the rich. I don’t know why anarchists would want to talk about it unless they are identifying with/appealing to liberals.

Tim
The "-cracy" part of

The "-cracy" part of democracy literally means power over or authority over. You idea that "extreme democracy is anarchy" is nonsensical.

Wayne Price (not verified)
MY personal definition of democracy?

The idea that "democracy" has been used to describe direct, face-to-face, popular participation in a commune, assembly or council is seen by you as something odd I have made up. Whereas, you assert (with smug ignorance) "historically democracy means representative government," ruled by the rich.

But this is not just *my* personal odd opinion. That is why I gave a little list of significant anarchists who have had the same opinion. I could have also cited Aristotle or Rousseau. Actually Aristotle regarded representation as an "aristocratic" element modifying pure democracy! Of course Aristotle had the example of the Athenian polis, as Rousseau had the Swiss cantons. (Neither of which were purely free societies, of course.)

"Historically" (as I noted in my brief post) aristocrats and the rich were against "democracy" which they regarded as "mob rule." They invented "representative democracy" ("republicanism") as a mechanism for taming the mob, by creating a*filter* between the poorer people and those making decisions. Among the US "founding fathers" they were quite clear about what they were doing.

As for Comrade Poo-Poo: You declare (also with no argument) that "Democracy is Authoritarian." (Presumably including direct participation in a council.)
Why not (following Orwell) "Freedom is Slavery," or "War is Peace" , or "Lies are Truth"? (BTW your little summary of my politics is a total lie.) Phui.

Wayne Price (not verified)
Historical evidence about democracy's meaning

For historical review of the meaning of democracy, see Ellen Meiksins Wood book, "Democracy Against Capitalism" (Section II).

Fauvenoir (not verified)
> popular participation in a

> popular participation in a commune, assembly or council

Just about the case with any capitalist democracy. "Popular" means an unlimited number of people, regardless the country, ethnic background or language, lol. The sheer impracticability of everyone running the whole place begs by itself the creation of representative bodies of any kind, which even without the need of a Supreme Soviet or Central Committee will install hierarchies and their related power dynamics.

So while even if true that the social contract that is representative democracy was developed as a scam by the capitalist establishment, there's no other democratic system that existed without being a myth being enforced to the many.

You must accept the system as a society of control. It only became more effective and powerful as capitalism overtaken socialist republics. Your great democracy that will likely be winning against dictatorships like Putinist Russia will still be holding people in solitary cells and torturing state enemies in secret prisons and killing the poor. This is... first and foremost.. because "the People" have wanted it that way. The Councils have spoken!

I don't care about your ideal democracy. I never asked for it. I never gave my consent. And that's why it'll never be legit. You don't need an 800-pages essay to explain this.

Comrade Poo-poo (not verified)
Wayne have you ever been in

Wayne have you ever been in the minority on an issue? Have you ever been compelled to comply with the majority opinion that you did not agree with? Have you ever had to do so at the threat of violence? The tyranny of the majority over a minority is authoritarian. Direct democracy is no different. It is an authoritarian form of decision making.

We anons have all voted and the majority decided you need to touch grass, Wayne. Failure to do so will result in your shunning, banning, or incarceration.

anon (not verified)
Yes, I certainly noticed that

Yes, I certainly noticed that you were citing “aristocrats and the rich” as your source. That is a problem. Despite your academic citations the broad strokes of your ideas often seem to be mostly transcribed from elite discourse.

I think what you’re talking about is what anarchists usually call “direct democracy” reflecting a need to undermine and problematize “democracy” as an allegedly single concept. An anarchist should stipulate that they mean democracy outside of or against the state rather than lumping it together with authoritarian forms of democracy. Heck, even North Korea and the Catholic Church hold elections. Is that democracy?

Athenian democracy was an enslaving society, just like modern capitalist democracies. I could have said just as accurately that democracy has historically gone hand in hand with slavery and colonialism.

-Smugly Ignorant of Priceism

Wayne Price (not verified)
The real issue about participatory democracy

(1) It is not entirely clear whether we are disagreeing about content or just about labels. Are anarchists for people meeting together, in councils or assemblies to work out collective decisions? If we are for this, then the question of whether to call it "democracy" is a secondary question. I can understand the desire not to confuse our program of self-management with support for the bourgeois-representative state.

(2) But some of the above posters (Fauvenoir and Poo-Poo Head) apparently are not for collective decision-making by face-to-face groups (communes, neighborhoods, workshops, factories, etc.). They seem to think that it is optional whether to make collective decisions. But issues must be decided. Shall the commune build a bridge or not. Shall the cooperative workshop make this type of shoes or that. If the decision is not decided democratically then how? (By "democratically" I mean either by consensus--with the right of a minority to stand aside--or by majority vote, after thorough discussion, with rights for the minority, including the right to be the majority on the next question.) Like it or not, group decisions have to be made and democracy (or whatever you want to call it) is the only free way to do it.

Poo-Poo even asks if I have "ever been in a minority on an issue?" Hah! When have I ever been in the majority?!

anon (not verified)
The year is 2023, comrade

The year is 2023, comrade Wayne. AI and advanced robotics have took yer jerbs. You are forced, by community majority, to sell your anus to the community AI programmers or you will receive no shoe ration for the winter. Thank you for your cooperation.

anon (not verified)
"Shall the commune build a

"Shall the commune build a bridge or not. Shall the cooperative workshop make this type of shoes or that. If the decision is not decided democratically then how?"
I shall swim, forde or make a raft if it is THAT important that I must cross a river for some reason, and I will do it bare foot, or else MAKE my own shoes using a little imagination and local materials. Life IS NOT a conveyor belt to a fashion show Wayne, it's using one's creative imagination and enjoying the process of leisurely going about satisfying the need for food and shelter and enjoying relationships.

anon (not verified)
Everyone in the whole world
anon (not verified)
"Life IS NOT a conveyor belt to a fashion show Wayne"

I don't agree. Time for an Anews Balenciaga AI version!

anon (not verified)
I sHIt in yOur mAss prOdUced

I sHIt in yOur mAss prOdUced SHoes mAde in SOuless fActorIes wIth wAge slAverY!

I miss Smokey (not verified)
Our anarchist collective

Our anarchist collective house had a dog named Smokey that kept shitting in everyone's shoes, probably due to years of trauma as a young puppy with a very strict and abusive owner before we liberated him. After a few weeks of continued shoe shitting the members of the collective house were so pissed off that 6 out of 10 of them voted to give up Smokey to the shelter. The 5 of us that opposed giving up Smokey decided to abide by our directly democratic process of decision making since we were committed anarchist workers and Smokey was given to the local animal shelter. Unfortunately the shelter turned out to be a kill shelter and they euthanized Smokey a short time later. It was all very sad but I guess you can't argue with the will of the majority! Long live democracy!

anon (not verified)
Hold on, direct democracy

Hold on, direct democracy would have included Smokey's vote in the count which would have been a nay (woOof) of course, thus a 6-6 tie and a stalemate, resulting in a coin toss, oOr a revote. This wasn't an anarchist collective house, it was an anthropocentric humanist meritocracy! Beware of those who call themselves 'anarchists' !

I miss Smokey (not verified)
We tried to make this

We tried to make this argument but the 6 who voted in favor of evicting Smokey were very influential, like Wayne Price, and their ring leader's name was on the lease so we didn't push.

Smokey was too good for this world anyway.

anon (not verified)
Omg, living with a Wayne

Omg, living with a Wayne Price-esque authoritarian must have daunting and stressful, it's a wonder the others didn't follow Smokey's rebellious act and begin defecating in all the cupboards and suitcases belonging to these control freaks.
Yes, Smokey was too good for these uber-domesticated leftists. RIP Smokey the anarch dog.

anon (not verified)
Ok so this "anarchist house"

Ok so this "anarchist house" had an informal ruler who had their name on the lease... What is that made it anarchist then? Collective members wearing black and reading Anvil Review or Baedan?

anon (not verified)
Topic of the Week: Anarchist

Topic of the Week: Anarchist Homeowners. What's up with that?
Is it still anarchy if you own a home and rent out rooms to your anarchist friends as long as you have a community garden space or put on shows in the unfinished basement? Some landlords are disabled and this is how they earn money, right?!?
Discuss.

anon (not verified)
Being a landlord with a home

Being a landlord with a home you own can never be considered anarchist. Not ever. You're probably also on stolen land so there's that as well,

anon (not verified)
Jesus Christ, couldn’t you

Jesus Christ, couldn’t you have put your shoes in a closet, on a shelf, in your own rooms, etc?

I do think this is maybe bullshit; really no one looked into the shelter before you left him there? It’s fucking gross either way.

anon (not verified)
Why do you wish to impose

Why do you wish to impose your opinion over the opinions of the majority of the people in the collective house? Democracy means collective self-management. This was the will of the majority of the working people of the collective house. Smokey didn't even work. Anarchists should never tell the working people they are wrong. Have you heard of Bakunin, Graeber, Makhno?

anon (not verified)
I assume this is a joke about

I assume this is a joke about political types who want to exterminate people that don’t work …

The ghost of Smokey (not verified)
NooOoo, it's about democratic

NooOoo, it's about democratic liberals voting for the removal of minorities for the welfare of the majority. If you don't work you don't eat and get medicine, and you die. So yes, in a rou dabout way, it's gentle extermination.

anon (not verified)
Tho! You bring a dog to a

Tho! You bring a dog to a house when no one agreed with it or even less asked for it. That is called despotism. Ha.

I miss Smokey (not verified)
You are wrong. Smokey was

You are wrong. Smokey was live rescued by all but one human members of the anarchist collective house. We reached a 9:1 decision to do so via extreme democracy and as Wayne has taught you in these comments: "extreme democracy is anarchy." The one outlier eventually got his way, however :-(

But, like Wayne is saying, as anarchists we must respect the sanctity of the directly democratic vote for our self determination even if it makes us sad.

anon (not verified)
IiiiiII'L dEmocrAtically

IiiiiII'L dEmocrAtically vOluntEer to SHIT in wAyne's nnnnECk bEard NOW If yOu gIve mE a mAJORity,,,

anon (not verified)
i feel like we are at some workerist

Meeting to decide whether we are allocating funds for a new dish detergent and kitty litter, but we are on @news so the joke is on us lol.

Tim
SMH these communes Wayne

SMH these communes Wayne describes sound like a fucking nightmare. After a day of working like 10 hours at the cooperative plantation tending to crops, you gotta go to a meeting where you're to have a thorough discussion about whether to do this or that and vote on it.

anon (not verified)
frankley, im confused about

Any sort of "democracy", i don't they ever existed. It's just code for "participate in my shitty politics!"

anon (not verified)
Oh I'm sorry you were too

Oh I'm sorry you were too tired after working a full day in the shoe factory to attend the assembly that decided via majority vote that all shoe factory workers must volunteer once a year in the Ukrainian military's soup kitchen. We had quorum and you could have participated in the vote if you had only shown up. Thank you for abiding by our directly democratic decision, comrade. Have a nice day tomorrow at the shoe factory and afterward we will plan your trip abroad.

Wayne Price (not verified)
Smokey and the Anarchists

My point is this: There was a real problem. Either Smokey was going to stay at the house or he was going to be given away. This was coercion by reality, not by the police. There had to be some way to make a collective decision. One person might have the absolute power to decide (the owner). Or the collective could have some method of coming to a group decision (democracy). This does not mean that the final decision was necessarily the best possible one (people being imperfect and all) but it was a group decision.

In this case, it might have been possible for a thorough discussion to have come to a better decision (shut up all shoes in a closet, perhaps). But I don't see what alternative there is to some sort of democratic procedure. Does anyone? (The person who says they would swim across a river if they had to misses the point. The community either builds a bridge or it doesn't and there has to be some way of making the decision.)

anon (not verified)
Why do you hate dogs, Wayne?

Why do you hate dogs, Wayne? Why are you trying to tell us that euthanizing dogs is okay because Democracy??? You are an awful human.

anon (not verified)
Wayne, Smokey (Igor) was

Wayne, Smokey (Igor) was actually a Ukrainian peasant soldier who had deserted and was hiding out in our collective house on the border of Poland. Our anarchist collective still directly demoratically voted 6:5 to evict him (turn him into the local Azov battalion soldiers). The Azov battalion Captain shot Igor in the head for desertion. In the end this was a collective group decision and democracy prevailed. Thank you for your wisdom.

anon (not verified)
They did him a favor, he was

They did him a favor, he was chainsmoking 80 Russian tobacco cigarettes a day, his lungs were collapsed and he couldn't charge 10 yards. Democracy prevented a helluva lot of suffering in the end. His old platoon played the 1812 overture when he deserted!

anon (not verified)
Russian tobacco cigarettes

Russian tobacco cigarettes are the worst.
God bless the Azov Battalion
and God bless Anarchist Democracy.

anon (not verified)
Yar, let us pray to pure

Yar, let us pray to pure democratic lungs, Then CHARGE!

anon (not verified)
Arh yes, ze renowned

Arh yes, ze renowned democratic anti-Semitic Battalion, yar yar,,,,Ve have come ze full circle vith democracy,,,

Tim
It's sad that you view

It's sad that you view animals as mere possessions and property to be owned. What's wrong with you?

Wayne Price (not verified)
Was Smokey a Democratic Anarchist?

As you know, I did not bring up the true story of the collective which decided the fate of Smokey the shoe-shitting dog. See # 20 and 32. I just commented on its relevance for group-decision-making (direct democracy).

But since you cannot respond to my arguments about radical democracy, you try to change the topic. You would prefer to discuss the issue of animal liberation and "pet" ownership. This is an important topic, but not what the originator of this list nor I was discussing. Of course you can write about whatever you want (it's a semi-free country) but it shows that you are giving up on defending your opposition to participatory democracy.

TranslationWayne (not verified)
Only Workers (the People!)

Only Workers (the People!) and Democratic Anarchist Dogs (DADs) get to live free, joyful lives. All others must succumb to the majority decision making our direct participatory democracy to determine if they get euthanized or not.

Long live democracy!

anon (not verified)
I personally believe that the

I personally believe that the definition of democracy depends on the person. True direct democracy - or the original idea - is that all people should be heard and have a say in governing themselves. Modern day democracy cannot be achieved directly due to how large society is; it would be impossible for a community of thousands to agree on how to govern themselves due to how differentiated opinions can be. However this does not make democracy inherently bad, as when direct democracy can work, it’s the people governing themselves rather than listening to a ruler. It is hard to truly say democracy is bad, as it is not a black and white concept. If people could agree to govern themselves equally, without a ruler, there would be less corruption as there would be debates and personal freedom. Whereas, in any modern government, corruption can thrive. Modern day democracy is no different - as with mass population as mentioned prior, modern democracy is impossible to have without representatives, who may become corrupt or have inherit bias. Although, some anarchists do believe that democracy is linked with anarchy, as anarchy can be blatantly described as governing yourself. In conclusion, democracy truly depends on the personal definition that is being used and could be described as morally grey.

Wayne Price (not verified)
Can Direct Democracy Work in Modern Society?

You declare that "Modern day democracy cannot be achieved directly due to how large society is..." True, thousands cannot meet in one place and have everyone participate in discussion. But a city of many thousands can be broken down into neighborhoods of hundreds and blocks of tens. And an effort can be made to develop smaller agri-industrial communities with can be directly managed (think of the town meetings of New England or the kibbutzim of Israel or the New Towns of the UK). Anarchists also apply direct democracy to industry, with workers meeting in the workers' councils of the whole factory or enterprise, and smaller councils in each department or shop, with elected (and rotating) officials. Think of producer cooperatives which have worked very well (as have democratic consumer cooperatives).

These units of direct democracy--communities and workplaces alike) may be federated from the bottom up to include larger and larger federations. Anyway, that's the idea.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6
x
r
1
&
&
f
5
Enter the code without spaces.