Add new comment

Suppose there is a commune where a minority believes that a new road should be built. There is discussion in the commune. They win over a majority of the people but a (new) minority still does not want the new road. But either the road will be built or it won’t. This is coercion, not by the police but by reality. If the resistant minority vetoes the road (under consensus) then they are coercing the majority to give up its desire. If the majority wins (in a community of majority-rule, with respect for the rights of minorities), then the minority must live with an unwanted road. They could leave their homes and friends, of course, but any new place they go will also have to decide on roads. Or they could stay. They might be in the majority on the next issue.

This is your description, Wayne, of democracy, which is certainly consistent with Bookchin's non-anarchist communalist position. As for the others you claim as allies, well, I would be surprised if someone like Kevin didn't find the "coercion by reality" excuse a bit too close to the nonsense we've so consistently heard from capitalists. But, whether or not those others share your conception, that conception is a distinctly political, archic conception, with the "commune" clearly occupying a position above that of the "members," mediating and constraining their relations, demanding sacrifices to "the collective." As far as I can tell, the difference between free and concerted action and action ultimately in the service of the group has no place in your analysis. Your bogeyman of "individualism" seems to be nothing but an attempt to shame those who refuse the "reality" that we have to fuck each other over—but take turns, of course—in order to be social.

There's no particular shame in being a communalist, you know, but working to naturalize political relations in anarchist circles is pretty unpleasant behavior.