Grassroots Democracy

Grassroots is a term simply meaning it occurs at a local level. This is the founding point of all forms of anarchy, but is particularly necessary for Anarchocommunism to survive.

By direct voting occurring at local levels, and community control of the economy, people can have a true say in their community and have full sway over their economy.

Discuss.

I would like to make note of something that Anarchists sometimes mix up.
Anarcho Communism, Anarcho Socialism and Libertarian Socialism are all different political philosophies, though they are similar.

solpacvoicis wrote:

Grassroots is a term simply meaning it occurs at a local level. This is the founding point of all forms of anarchy, but is particularly necessary for Anarchocommunism to survive.

By direct voting occurring at local levels, and community control of the economy, people can have a true say in their community and have full sway over their economy.

Well, i think that as long as the revolution is grass-roots, the society will be as well. If the revolution is dictated to the masses by a vanguard of some sort, their society will be dictated as well.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

Grassroots is a term simply meaning it occurs at a local level. This is the founding point of all forms of anarchy, but is particularly necessary for Anarchocommunism to survive.

By direct voting occurring at local levels, and community control of the economy, people can have a true say in their community and have full sway over their economy.

Well, i think that as long as the revolution is grass-roots, the society will be as well. If the revolution is dictated to the masses by a vanguard of some sort, their society will be dictated as well.

"If the revolution is dictated to the masses by a vanguard of some sort, their society will be dictated as well."

Care to elaborate?

KenCat wrote:

"If the revolution is dictated to the masses by a vanguard of some sort, their society will be dictated as well."

Care to elaborate?

If people are, and feel that they are, really an active part of the revolution, why would they not be an active part of the society that their revolution created? Social reformation is the whole point of revolution, so i think it logically follows that those who are active and a part of the revolution will be active and a part of the society post-revolution. If it is like Russia, where the masses have hardly any say in what happens with the revolution, they will not have any emotional ties to the society thereafter; they will continue being told what to do and nothing would have changed.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

KenCat wrote:

"If the revolution is dictated to the masses by a vanguard of some sort, their society will be dictated as well."

Care to elaborate?

If people are, and feel that they are, really an active part of the revolution, why would they not be an active part of the society that their revolution created? Social reformation is the whole point of revolution, so i think it logically follows that those who are active and a part of the revolution will be active and a part of the society post-revolution. If it is like Russia, where the masses have hardly any say in what happens with the revolution, they will not have any emotional ties to the society thereafter; they will continue being told what to do and nothing would have changed.

Very good point. One can argue that this was one of the reasons why communism mainly fell.

Sounds more like libertarian municipalism than anarcho-communism to me. Anarcho communism is a society in which consumers control distribution. I support participatory economics, which includes some municipalism, some communism, and some syndicalism.

Corrbrias wrote:

Sounds more like libertarian municipalism than anarcho-communism to me. Anarcho communism is a society in which consumers control distribution. I support participatory economics, which includes some municipalism, some communism, and some syndicalism.

Anarcho Communism is a society in which producers control distribution.

well, just saying, so you get it right - the ussr wasn't communist, it was socialist, and that can be established through popular revolt instead of vanguardism - which would've been better in my opinion, because i don't think they would've fared well against both the imperial forces, their rising bourgeoisie, and the immense task of rebuilding their industry...

the end result of communism and anarcho communism is synonymous

Corrbrias wrote:

Sounds more like libertarian municipalism than anarcho-communism to me. Anarcho communism is a society in which consumers control distribution. I support participatory economics, which includes some municipalism, some communism, and some syndicalism.

i though in anarcho-communism no one would have a right to the fruit of their labour, instead, they'd have a right to their needs.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

If people are, and feel that they are, really an active part of the revolution, why would they not be an active part of the society that their revolution created? Social reformation is the whole point of revolution, so i think it logically follows that those who are active and a part of the revolution will be active and a part of the society post-revolution. If it is like Russia, where the masses have hardly any say in what happens with the revolution, they will not have any emotional ties to the society thereafter; they will continue being told what to do and nothing would have changed.

I like what you're saying here. Mainly that in order for a system to work, the people have to beleive in that system, enough to establish it. Also that they must participate in that system, otherwise, you end up with capitalism, where it becomes so conspicuous that it resembles dumping human life substance on the floor and hoping it works itself out.
Again, if a order is to last where some people do what they wish to do and consume what they need to consume, then they must contribute via doing both.
The consequence to this is that work that does not contribute to the community becomes annuled, which really isn't a consequence. Practically all work benefits the community, with the exception of work which should not exist. IE- Governmnent officials, Police, Lawyers, Claims checkers, Security officials, Health inspectors, FDA, and most of all, Advertisers and advertising agents. The list is endless.

god0fmusic wrote:

i though in anarcho-communism no one would have a right to the fruit of their labour, instead, they'd have a right to their needs.

Well, i guess you don't have a 'right' to your labour (mostly since most communists are of the persuasion that it is impossible to fairly determine the worth of any particular labour), but in a state of abundance, that must exist in order for communism to exist, you can, if you need or wish, take what you think is the worth of your labour. And if you merely mean that we don't have the right to what our labour actually created (the actual commodity), then i'd say that's untrue, but for the most part people wouldn't want that anyway, since they would want to 'trade' what they labored over for other necessities and such.

Quote :

Practically all work benefits the community, with the exception of work which should not exist. IE- Governmnent officials, Police, Lawyers, Claims checkers, Security officials, Health inspectors, FDA, and most of all, Advertisers and advertising agents. The list is endless.

And don't forget the vast numbers of people in the armies and navies of the world.

Public Enemy wrote:

Practically all work benefits the community, with the exception of work which should not exist. IE- Governmnent officials, Police, Lawyers, Claims checkers, Security officials, Health inspectors, FDA, and most of all, Advertisers and advertising agents. The list is endless.

Very well put.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Well, i guess you don't have a 'right' to your labour (mostly since most communists are of the persuasion that it is impossible to fairly determine the worth of any particular labour), but in a state of abundance, that must exist in order for communism to exist, you can, if you need or wish, take what you think is the worth of your labour. And if you merely mean that we don't have the right to what our labour actually created (the actual commodity), then i'd say that's untrue, but for the most part people wouldn't want that anyway, since they would want to 'trade' what they labored over for other necessities and such.

well, when you think about it, if you have a right to your needs, then you would have everything you need in order to progress and you would not have things which hinder you. of course this is very hard to determine by society, and it is impossible to create an economic system which does this. for now i think that progress in society can get the job done of giving you what you need, intellectually and physically. but this would require consciousness, which would be spread during a revolution, but i still dont see how it would remain for long. i do think it would remain through a generation or two since in a society, memory tends to persist for a while, especially if that society is based on certain ideologies.
so right now i think that the ideal thing would be to think of a system which would retain cosnciousness better.

god0fmusic wrote:

well, when you think about it, if you have a right to your needs, then you would have everything you need in order to progress and you would not have things which hinder you. of course this is very hard to determine by society, and it is impossible to create an economic system which does this. for now i think that progress in society can get the job done of giving you what you need, intellectually and physically. but this would require consciousness, which would be spread during a revolution, but i still dont see how it would remain for long. i do think it would remain through a generation or two since in a society, memory tends to persist for a while, especially if that society is based on certain ideologies.
so right now i think that the ideal thing would be to think of a system which would retain cosnciousness better.

i tend to believe that the only way to keep permanent consciousness, so to speak, is through education...we need to learn about all systems of government, all economic theories, etc, in school, an objective political education.

solpacvoicis wrote:

i tend to believe that the only way to keep permanent consciousness, so to speak, is through education...we need to learn about all systems of government, all economic theories, etc, in school, an objective political education.

Agreed. I wonder if this will ever happen..

it will happen, comrade: through direct action and the formation of new grassroots bonds across the world =]

The only way direct-democracy can work is on a grassroots level. That's basically common sense.

Cheveyo wrote:

solpacvoicis wrote:

i tend to believe that the only way to keep permanent consciousness, so to speak, is through education...we need to learn about all systems of government, all economic theories, etc, in school, an objective political education.

Agreed. I wonder if this will ever happen..

AND LEARN THAT THEIR ARE TONS OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS BETTER THAN CAPITALISM? NOT!