No.610297
There are quite a few people here who would consider themselves in favour of direct democracy on localised scales. I am myself, even after hearing this criticism, but I just wanna hear some anarchists' responses to the criticism- can you still defend completely localised direct democracy after hearing it? Genuinely interested. I don't feel like I am able to defend a complete lack of centralisation for fear of instability in the region at this point. Maybe will even have to start supporting the idea of a centralised vanguard .
>People don't have the time nor energy to spend being always active in politics
>No anarchist region focused on direct democracy by local confederates has survived for more than 2 months
>Small scale operations don't have the capacity for fast, efficient action.
How would you respond to this? Ty.
No.610313
No.610330
The biggest problem with democracy is that most people are idiots are will spend no time trying to be anything else.
Call me an elitist.
No.610334
>>610330
Nah that's not elitism. It's true. The minute you say that idiocy is necessarily bad is when it's elitism. All you said is that it means democracy is harder to achieve because of it.
No.610336
>>610330
no. I will call you what I want. I will call you a Phlugg.
No.610338
>>610313
Thought so.
I still think localism is *generally* better because it's better to have an actual grasp of the area's issues. Agree?
No.610342
>>610297
By the time that kind of democracy will become possible, it will no longer be necessary.
No.610348
>>610338
Generally. Though often local groups will have a leader that they'll follow. Hopefully that leader is knowledgeable to make reasonable decisions.
No.610349
>>610348
Mm. Perhaps the biggest issue is corruption as opposed to leadership. Leadership and ruling is different, after all.
No.610385
>>610297
Learn how to critique and get back to me.
No.610390
>>610349
Leadership could be said to be the most democratic form of rulership. People only follow a leader by choice, sometimes necessity, but never by force.
No.610419
>>610297
>People don't have the time nor energy to spend being always active in politics
The thing is some people do. For those people who do have such aspirations, the system should allow them to participate freely without having massive systemic barriers. If a revolutionary movement of any kind is to succeed, its most important guiding principles must already exist in the minds of those who would fight for it: relying on parties to act as the "voice of the working class" in a revolutionary/post-revolutionary society leads to speedy corrosion of the working class interests among the mindset of those meant to rule the party.
For those who remain uninterested in participatory governance, they can always just delegate their voting power to someone else, or just not participate.
>No anarchist region focused on direct democracy by local confederates has survived for more than 2 months
Historically that's simply not the case. Not to bring in Kekalonia like every anarchist and their grandmother does, but there you had individual communities acting in a directly democratic manner (at least at the local level). You also had the various soviets over in the Ukraine that, at the foundational level (at least in the original workers council sense), were directly democratic at the lowest levels. Not to say that either of them were really that great of successes in the long run, but they did last longer than 2 months.
>Small scale operations don't have the capacity for fast, efficient action.
This is true, but that doesn't always mean that all anarchist experiments require being so small scale. The ones that have lasted the longest have been the ones that have pushed for including as many communities as possible under cooperative organization rather than remaining content with remaining in one spot. Much like any communist movement, the revolution must be permitted to grow regardless of principles of internal governance.
No.610429
>>610419
You're assuming the voices and opinions of the random masses is worth a damn.
No.610479
>>610429
Considering the whole point of the left is to liberate those masses, I should certainly think that their voices matter in how the society they form with their bare hands will operate.
We do not nor have ever lived in a meritocracy: the most capable people are not guaranteed (and quite often are actively hindered) from reaching positions of leadership under most systems we have historically seen. The voices of those who we have known to rule are often no greater in the body of their message than those of those masses you look down upon: the only difference is that they were willing to sell out and associate with those who already find themselves in positions of systemic power. Thus, a self-sustaining cycle of power is created founded not on merit or expertise of those involved, but on corruption and elitist pandering.
It becomes more meritocratic in most respects to rely not on an arbitrary "elite" to handle governance, but to relinquish power to the governed to be lead, not ruled, by people who find themselves capable and knowing.
No.610489
>>610479
I'd say that was a fine ideal before the age of mass media and federally regulated public education.
No.610530
>>610390
>People follow a leader by choice
>Never by force
Maximum Porky Overload
No.610539
I think what gets left out of the conversation with anarchist politics (and by that I in no way am inferring that direct democracy is the only possible anarchist style of politics) is that anarchist direct democracy is consensus based. I already am aware of the problems with this system as well.
Also, I have seen that and he is just plain wrong.
Kekalonia aside what about Ukraine?
No.610541
>>610419
Didn't the CNT have over 1 million members?
Also, platformism is the answer to that anons question, no?
No.610543
>>610530
If it take force to get people behind a leader, then he's no longer a leader but a ruler.
No.610546
>>610489
Quite the opposite I believe, at least for the first half.
When it comes to mass media, you probably would be right about it standing in the way of a mass movement in the pre-internet era. In those times, the content that would reach the masses was more tightly controlled so as to prevent anti-capitalist or rally cries to the working class from being known. With the internet today, we see movement away from these traditional information sources by all echelons of society (at least in the west): it is becoming more decentralized in terms of information sources. That isn't to say there is no control of information on the internet, because there is through methods like altering search engine results to hide unfavorable sites. However, these measures can be bypassed, and the information can at least begin to make its way to the masses.
When it comes to federally regulated public education, aside from college, it's mostly garbage anyways. The indoctrination methods they've been using as part of the educational system today are horrendously outdated to the point that most people are well aware that attempts at manipulation are at play. College is really the point where the establishment ideology begins to be sold more vigorously. Prior to then, many people I've known were easily brought back to reason with only small amounts of introduction to theory; theory that they had never been exposed to before, thus the educational system took too few measures to intellectually protect against it.
No.610560
>>610543
Fair point.
:^)
But,can rulers not lead, as well?
No.610572
Zizek claims that, in face of a ecological catastrophe in todays world for example, we will need "larger than state" organizations with the organizational capacity to deal with the problem itself.
A centralized organization, etc. etc. etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8LPn4irao
No.610574
>>610541
Yeah, the CNT was pretty massive at its height, though that was only ~4% of the population of Spain at the time. Still, given it's concentration in the Catalonia region, that was the majority of the population there.
Also in a sense yes, platformism is essentially the response to some of the historical failures of leadership and cohesiveness among anarchist movements from what I understand of it. I'll admit though, I'm perhaps not as familiar with platformism as a standalone concept as I should be.
No.610621
No.610631
>>610572
I just feel like zezik just doesn't understand anarchism, tbh.
No.610643
>>610631
>If someone doesn't like anarchism, he just doesn't understands it!
k fam.
No.610660
I still don't fully understand the anarchist/marxist divide if there even is a major one. But what is the problem with representative democracy if it's just more decentralized and direct than now. I mean for instance in the US it could be similar to the structure now minus capitalism and with some major modifications and a limited executive branch. I never saw a problem with a national govt as long as the constitution/foundation of government was firmly decentralized and more direct democracy was utilized on specific issues that aren't just implementing existing laws.
Not being bait, also as a side note, are most ML's for total social freedoms, as in socially essentially libertarian w/some important exceptions.
No.610666
>>610643
That's not what I said at all.
But, when some one as intelligent as Zezik is doesn't know about the Spanish revolution or the Ukrainian revolution that tells me they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
"fam"
No.610673
>>610660
Representative democracy is 51% of people telling 49% of people to fuck off.
Fuck democracy.
The divide between Marxist Leninist and anarchists is irreconcilable.
They are intrinsically authoritarian. Despite their denial of it
And we are not.
They want A Centralized economy ran by the state and we want a decentralized economy with out a state.
Our differences are to large to bridge the gap.
>Inb4 statecuck asshurt.
No.610677
>>610666
>amcom writes "tbh"
>complains when someone writes "fam"
>Zizek doesn't have my level of intelligence about my anarchisms
>thus, he doesn't know what he talks about and hes p. dumb
No.610680
Problem with localism is that it vastly underestimates the sheer scale of manpower and time too govern a country not too mention the sheer amount of time and legal understanding needed too effectively understand and pass legislation. Go read Legislation, it's all legal lawyer gobblygook, how in fuck is your average person supposed too understand that? They can't, hell I love politics and actually read through legislation and even I don't fully comprehend the legal jargon that 99% of it is.
This is why you have representative democracy with politicans with entire teams of legal experts, economists and sociologists behind them. It's a heavily demanding full time job with 6am starts too midnight ends.
I think there are ways too improve local democracy and I agree with many of the tenants of Syndicalism, but as someone who has worked in the Public Service, who has worked directly under Politicans, localism is a pipe dream and will never, ever function.
How in fuck is localism supposed too work in major cities anyway?
No.610702
>>610677
>Being this triggered over his man crush zezik not being as hot as he thought he was
>>610680
>Laws
>Legislation
What?
The anarchists in Spain knew Bakunin and Kropotkin almost by heart, man.
Also, platformism is great at getting things done.
No state required.
>CNT had over 1 million members at its height
I am not sure if this was directed at me as a reply to my last comment but I feel like it was.
"Localism" as you put it works by organized tight nit groups of decentralized federations of workers built on free association and a common tactics, goal, and theory.
(Workers control over the means of production, Defense of the area, Free association, Direct democracy based on consensus politics, ect ect ect)
No.610715
No.610717
No.610732
>>610715
>>610717
>tfw /leftypol/ didn't even bother to make a Happy Birthday collage to Zizek like /tv/ did to CIA
:(
No.610739
>>610732
Make a thread about it FAM. I'll be glad to contribute
No.610766
>>610702
Some form of governance and laws will always be required.
Also the vast majority of legislation is mundane legal and budgetary gobblygook every day Parliaments, congresses, senates pass dozens of pieces of legislation that mostly relate too book keeping and other mundane shit.
Most people would not give a single shit or even understand most of this stuff, passing legislation and governance is a full time job. There are ways too make representative democracy better (public votes on major issues, recall representative at any time, syndicalism throughout industry and workplaces etc) but localism can never, ever function on a large scale because again, governance is a full time job.
No.610785
>>610766
>Some form of governace and law will always be requireed
Dissagree
>Most people would not give a single shit or even understand most of this stuff, passing legislation and governance is a full time job.
More reason to get rid of it. What a waste of perfectly good paper.
>There are ways too make representative democracy better
At the end of the day it is still majority rule.
Also it kind of requires the state to work considering with out the state the loosing half would just go do what they wanted to doany ways.
Free association and direct democracy based on consensus politics is the solution.
>but localism can never, ever function on a large scale because again, governance is a full time job.
>CNT had over 1 million members.
No.610787
>>610297
>No anarchist region focused on direct democracy by local confederates has survived for more than 2 months
Rojava's cantons say hi. Yeah, yeah, not anarchist like Kekalonia but still organized around communes and delegation to councils.
>>610419
Low barriers of participation doesn't prevent the kind of corrosion you're concerned about, it only makes it easier to uproot once it's discovered, as there is no institutional protection of the corrupt.
It also makes it easier for any asshole with a grudge or a chip on their shoulder to campaign against otherwise good leadership or ideas.
It's a catch-22. Opening the system to everyone is populism, closing it is institutionalism. There needs to be transparency of government without the ability to immediately recall a delegate just because a public attack campaign has been organized against them. I.e. there should be some kind of legal proof of wrongdoing or corruption required rather than just someone rallying the masses against effective leadership in order to try and manipulate their own into those positions.
>>610673
>Representative democracy is 51% of people telling 49% of people to fuck off.
No, that is simple majority rule, you dumbass. Way to parrot the typical /pol/ argument against duh gubmint. Representative government ensures the majority can't vote to genocide the minority, for example; it has checks and balances, separation of powers, constitutional law etc. Unfortunately, all of this was written before corporate money assumed its predominant position in political life, so it's all broken down and corrupted.
>>610702
>who needs laws? just read Bakunin and Kropotkin
Fucking anarchists.
No.610791
>>610787
>No, that is simple majority rule, you dumbass.
Yes democracy
>Way to parrot the typical /pol/ argument against duh gubmint.
Did I Trigger you?
>Representative government ensures the majority can't vote to genocide the minority
Yes because we have never seen that happen in representative democracy, like, ever.
Kek
> Unfortunately, all of this was written before corporate money assumed its predominant position in political life, so it's all broken down and corrupted.
It couldn't have anything to do with capitalism itself, right? It's all just corporatism. Sarcasm
>Fucking anarchists
Fucking state cucks
No.610793
>>610785
>>610791
Forgot my flag.
:^)
No.610813
>>610330
>most people are idiots
That can be remedied with better education.
No.610824
>>610791
>>610793
Nah, that flag is quite appropriate.
No.610999
>>610297
>People don't have the time nor energy to spend being always active in politics
Abolish work
>>610330
>muh human nature
>>610342
underrated post
No.611063
He's right, direct dem. I'd imagine would create some major animosity when the decision is over anything important, it's also far from flexible and can't take immediate action like in the case of disaster relief. There's also about 2 centuries of political science on how to manipulate votes.
That said I don't think there is a major issue with local autonomy and some centralization to take care of all regular bs and unexpected crisis.
No.611117
>>610702
>there are no laws in anarchism
What the fuck? Every anarchist i've met spends all their time denying this.
No.611118
>>610732
>email zizek
>tell him about /leftypol/
>he responds saying it's full of inane comments
No.611119
>>610787
Representative government ensures the majority can't vote to genocide the minority, for example; it has checks and balances, separation of powers, constitutional law etc. Unfortunately, all of this was written before corporate money assumed its predominant position in political life, so it's all broken down and corrupted.
Fuck off. The constitution was designed to entrench an upper class from its inception and universal suffrage was considered tyranny of the majority
No.611407
>>610999
>muh muh instead of argument
No.611431
>>610297
I agree with zizek as per my post that might have made you look up what zizek thought.
Also, can we ban that ancom and tell him to come back when he learns to argue and stops using "cool-kids" slang, "lol u triggered" and smileys?
No.611433
>>611118
Thats would not be false.
No.611444
>>611119
This. There are posters on leftypol right now that respect a constitutional parliamentary system and it's also completely fucking bourgeois.
No.611449
>>611431
u triggered, brah?
u idealism, brah?
im not marxist enaough for you, brah?
No.611451
>>610702
>>Laws
>
>>Legislation
>
>What?
Why are you cancer?
No.611453
>>611451
:^}
What?
Direct democracy will win!
>telling me what to do
hah, why don't YOU drop that flag?
>cancer
more like the best poster on leftypol
No.611457
>>611119
>>611444
Of course it's completely fucking bourgeois. You retards do realize that the alternative at the time was feudalism, right?
No.611467
>>611449
Go back to reddit.
No.611751
>>610419
>some people do
That's the problem. The hard working masses, most of the proletariat will not have time to be that involved in politics.
This also factors into >>610429 , my response to him would be that they are worth a damn given that the workers know what is best for their work. Decisions that affect them, they know what serves them best. Furthermore it would be worth more of a damn had they the time to actually be involved in politics, and weren't disillusioned with the system.
But my point is >>610419 that you will get scabs being more involved in politics, and exploiting workers again.
This delegation idea interests me however.
As for what you say regarding Soviet councils (I honestly am too ignorant on Kekalonia to comment) isn't that much like saying Hitler was a liberal because he had welfare? The overarching themes were not localised. Furthermore there was still a strong centralised state.
No.611758
REEEEEEEEE STOP NAMEFAGGING!
No.611762
>>610530
He makes sense. You're conflating leader with ruler.
>>610560
Yep, they can. Prevention of corruption however makes it so that ruling and leadership and mutually exclusive.
>>610631
Tbh you can't say people just don't understand anarchism. He agrees to have anarchist leanings. He certainly understands the difference. Hence why he refers to it as localised direct democratic confederacy as opposed to what generally ancoms advocate.
>>610673
Honestly, I agree to an extent, but I don't think centralisation is always bad. However I think it should be limited as much as possible. I'd like to think that we can run entirely on a localised scale, but that doesn't seem to be feasible. And if you think about it, localism and centralism are all relative.
>>610787
It's got some centralism and executive lead, tho.
No.611764
>>611758
culture is a spook
:^)
No.611806
>>611117
>>610824
>There are laws in anarchism.
Can I buy some drugs off you two?
No.611811
No.611817
>>611451
>>What?
There are fucking people who seriously believe anarchism has laws.
Holy, mother, of Jesus.
Never mind the fact that laws require states to uphold them
False Flag
No.611853
>>611817
This entirely depends on what one defines as a law.
No.611858
>>610813
EVERYONE IS AN IDIOT OUTSIDE THEIR FIELD OF EXPERTISE OR INTEREST.
Even the most political illiterate fucking idiot with the most stupid opinions on the planet can suprise you on their knowledge of car engines.
>>611762
Since when did you change your flag you fag?
No.611868
>>611858
this. If Workers can organise their own means of production it's stupid to say they're too stupid to know what's best for THEIR work.
I change it all the time. It just depends on my mood. I quite like this one though, I generally get on with anarcho nihilists quite well.
[Spoiler] Hence why I will never change it to tankie, because tankies are insufferable [/spoiler]
No.611910
>>611853
>Laws are a spook.
No.611913
No.611935
>>611868
spoliler is just two asterisks side by side on either end of your text. no spaces required