I thought this was interesting, it’s an overview of how an anarchist revolution would work without entrenching authoritarianism or vanguard parties.
You must log in or register to comment.
I like this. I’m not exactly an anarchist but i’m open to it. Whatever gets rid of capitalism I guess.
Exactly my thought process. Anything worth doing is worth doing right, so a revolution that doesn’t result in authoritarianism would be ideal to me.
Capital and the state are two sides of the same coin. The state protects capital, and capital constructs the state.
Anarchism is the earliest socialist tradition, and the later concept of the workers’ state has always been problematic.
Anarchists’ inability to imagine decision-making mechanisms beyond direct democracy/consensus for organizations is a missed opportunity. There is a spectrum of mechanisms in-between direct democracy and uncoordinated direct action. An example is some variant of quadratic funding, which could allocate resources towards mutual aid. It is an egalitarian mechanism that ensures that organizations with broad-based support receive more resources than those supported by resourced concentrated groups
I’m an anarchosyndicalist so my perspective might be a bit skewed, but anarchism isn’t strictly opposed to representation. There’s a heavy preference to consensus, but consensus is also objectively the most democratic method available to people. Direct action doesn’t mean that there aren’t organizers either, in fact it’s basically necessary. Organizers aren’t “dear leader” however, they just do the brunt of planning to help focus the action people will be taking part in. Preparation for the revolution would require funding, but voting with dollars in any capacity still means that those without dollars have no votes.
It is good that anarchists are open to delegation. They seem to be unable to imagine delegation to another egalitarian decision-making procedure. If this other decision-making procedure isn’t serving the organization’s members, it should be replaced.
A federation of worker coops where the means of production is collectivized across the federation would need some mechanism to allocate revenue from the means of production to mutual aid projects. Consensus would not be effective in this case
I’d be inclined to agree. That’s where the role of unions come in, for both stewardship of the commons and managing production between communities in a library economy. A union typically elects 10% of a workplace into stewardship, and I think that’s a decent number of people to represent the community in narrow circumstances. If a steward acts against the community (not automating new areas of production, acts against the bargaining priorities, etc) then I think the community should have the ability to immediately remove that steward.
Anarchists seek to replace the state with systems that are constructed through full participation, not to reproduce the state with a different one that may seem to some as more appealing.
Would you mind explaining your understanding over the incompatibility between consensus and mutual aid, and what you imagine may be neither coercive or consensual?
I think anarchists may support representation in the sense of delegation, but I have understood that most would be reluctant to uphold a representative body in which would be vested permanent power.
I agree. I think the role of the union in an anarchist society would be to manage the commons through elected stewards and coordinate production between communities in a library economy. In the rare instances where cross-community needs must be handled, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how the Haudenosaunee handled consensus in the confederacy. Unions should have 10% of their unit in the stewardship role, and I see no reason why that can’t translate to what amounts to bargaining committees negotiating tentative agreements for the community. The largest communities must have a consensus before the proposal goes to any involved small communities, with the smallest/target community having a tie-breaking vote (requiring consensus for the vote). After that, the proposal goes for a vote by the communities before being implemented.
Any such idea is possible in principle, but ultimately no configuration will be actual except the one constructed through general participation. Variation may be considerable across locality and over time.
absolutely. It’s why I tend not to think about how communities will self organize. Of course I think about how I want MY community to organize, but it’s not my place to dictate that to other communities. Instead, I focus my thoughts on inter-communal politics in a direct, self-actualizing manner.
There is a curious tension between the prudence of conceiving a coherent plan versus the aspiration to foster a politics of participation.
I am often criticized, when advocating for transformative change, for not proffering a vision. It seems everyone is expecting to be led, as though conditioned to be no more than a follower.
It represents a profound challenge to transform our society away from adherence to fixed ideals and toward expression of individual agency.
It’s part of why organizing unions are difficult. As an organizer, I have to try and help people recognize that only we can save ourselves. I always have to help people awaken to class consciousness and re-enforce the idea that workplace democracy is the only fair way forward. It’s an immense challenge. I have to help people realize that we aren’t deciding things for them, they decide things for themselves. Seeding the idea that we should have control of our lives is a huge part what I do.
I feel doubtful that your criticism appropriately targets anarchism.
Anarchists rarely utilize or support voting, nor any prescribed system that would supersede the evolving consensus of a group.
Generally, a system is stable, if not by enforcement from a state, then only by being upheld from consensus.
Lol, yeah sure.
This is an overview of a very broad topic. Do you have any specific objections to the video?
