Democratic anarchism?

can anarchism be achieved through democracy, through a party voting system, or would that just mean anyone within that party is corrupted and conforms to the state and deviates from their original goals?
could there even be an anarchist party for that matter? how is it agreed to organise the whole change other wise?
gawd, wish i could construct my topics better, but those are the main questions here, there may be some to follow.

JackBrindelli wrote:

can anarchism be achieved through democracy, through a party voting system, or would that just mean anyone within that party is corrupted and conforms to the state and deviates from their original goals?
could there even be an anarchist party for that matter? how is it agreed to organise the whole change other wise?
gawd, wish i could construct my topics better, but those are the main questions here, there may be some to follow.

Good question - Anarchism rejects representative democracy on the grounds that it leads to oligarchy/plutocracy ect. This is why reject party politics - we consider it the ability to elect a dictator - choose between rulers and therefore undemocratic in the truest sense of the word.

Anarchism only recognizes participatory democracy ie direct democracy. We believe in direct action enacted via proposition and vote on issues - not people. For example if a decision must be made propositions are put forward and voted upon anonymously - this way corruption and personality politics are out of the equation.

An anarchist society would not have a government - there would be no need for one. Workers would control the workplace - community councils would make decisions with regards public works ect.

Inkus2000 wrote:

JackBrindelli wrote:

can anarchism be achieved through democracy, through a party voting system, or would that just mean anyone within that party is corrupted and conforms to the state and deviates from their original goals?
could there even be an anarchist party for that matter? how is it agreed to organise the whole change other wise?
gawd, wish i could construct my topics better, but those are the main questions here, there may be some to follow.

Good question - Anarchism rejects representative democracy on the grounds that it leads to oligarchy/plutocracy ect. This is why reject party politics - we consider it the ability to elect a dictator - choose between rulers and therefore undemocratic in the truest sense of the word.

Anarchism only recognizes participatory democracy ie direct democracy. We believe in direct action enacted via proposition and vote on issues - not people. For example if a decision must be made propositions are put forward and voted upon anonymously - this way corruption and personality politics are out of the equation.

An anarchist society would not have a government - there would be no need for one. Workers would control the workplace - community councils would make decisions with regards public works ect.

i heard someone say "who ever you vote for the government wins." seems kind of relevant i guess.
but couldn't a party be run without a leader, and couldn't it be a good way to publicise the ideas of anarchism and get yourselves across to more of the public?
not to seriously get elected, but at the very least oppose what everyone else supoports and show there is an alternative way of thinking that is alive out there.

JackBrindelli wrote:

but couldn't a party be run without a leader, and couldn't it be a good way to publicise the ideas of anarchism and get yourselves across to more of the public?
not to seriously get elected, but at the very least oppose what everyone else supoports and show there is an alternative way of thinking that is alive out there.

like the anarchist party? lol

you could work through the state and get to a rather decentralized state of affairs. Switzerland is an example of this. in Switzerland, the people themselves have a great capacity to veto a law (more than in any other country). it is a mix between participatory democracy and representative democracy. it has practically no corruption or class diferences, and this is why no one ever hears about switzerland on the news.
the only bad thing about switzerland is that people are probably unaware that there are things which could be better. it is right now in a deep meditative trance, but it hasnt achieved nirvana. it is happy and calm, but no fully wise.
switzerland's education system for example is not democratic. it is the standard education system which fails to teach people freedom and responsibility. it is sure better than a lot of education systems, but it hasnt achieved what it should achieve.
through politics, switzerland will eventually achieve a much better state than it is right now. it will make it's education democratic as the rest of the world goes through a revolution and makes their education systems democratic. this is why i dont think switzerland should ever be affected by a revolution, and why capitalism shouldnt just be abolished in it. it should remain as it is and change slowly as it sees the rest of the world change. this is imposible for other countries to do due to the political corruption. if it weren't for the political corruption, we would need no revolution.

in more corrupt countries there would have to be a mix between revolution and politics, and in the most corrupt ones, there would have to be reovlutions. countries with very little corruption (switzerland, sweden, and finland) would be depending upon the experiments we make with anarchism in corrupt countries.

Murray Bookchin proposed a system called libertarian municipalism, which is quite interesting although i dont know much about it. you should check it out.

JackBrindelli wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

JackBrindelli wrote:

can anarchism be achieved through democracy, through a party voting system, or would that just mean anyone within that party is corrupted and conforms to the state and deviates from their original goals?
could there even be an anarchist party for that matter? how is it agreed to organise the whole change other wise?
gawd, wish i could construct my topics better, but those are the main questions here, there may be some to follow.

Good question - Anarchism rejects representative democracy on the grounds that it leads to oligarchy/plutocracy ect. This is why reject party politics - we consider it the ability to elect a dictator - choose between rulers and therefore undemocratic in the truest sense of the word.

Anarchism only recognizes participatory democracy ie direct democracy. We believe in direct action enacted via proposition and vote on issues - not people. For example if a decision must be made propositions are put forward and voted upon anonymously - this way corruption and personality politics are out of the equation.

An anarchist society would not have a government - there would be no need for one. Workers would control the workplace - community councils would make decisions with regards public works ect.

i heard someone say "who ever you vote for the government wins." seems kind of relevant i guess.
but couldn't a party be run without a leader, and couldn't it be a good way to publicise the ideas of anarchism and get yourselves across to more of the public?
not to seriously get elected, but at the very least oppose what everyone else supoports and show there is an alternative way of thinking that is alive out there.

Our objective is to build an alternative society via anarchist organizations, unions, councils ect - We don't recognize
the state or the capitalist mode of production as being legitimate on the grounds that its undemocratic, therefore we refuse to participate in or acknowledge the prevailing power structures.

Anarchist organizations function outside the established unions - institutions ect. Every institution - state body ect is in essence an arm of the capitalist mode of production as such working within them would be futile. They are structured so as to preserve the economic base ie. unions exist to facilitate social mobility (within the capitalist hierarchy). Reformism is pointless we dont focus on the various branches - we focus on the root, we aim to reconstruct the very base of society.

Anarchist organizations aim mostly at heightening awareness of the current condition and highlighting the possible alternative. During slave society slavery was considered absolute, natural and inevitable - as was the feudal mode of organization ect - not one historical mode of organization has existed without the underlying ideology that it is natural - eternal ect we call this ''cultural hegomony'' whereby the upper class of the given society indoctrinates the populace with the notion that the given mode is ''unchangeable''.

As with every mass social change the prevalent ideology needs to be A - Shown as a meer ideology - broken and replaced with one that the people of the time consider more appropriate. Anarchist organizations spend a great deal of time undermining the hegomony of the upper class.

Inkus2000 wrote:

Our objective is to build an alternative society via anarchist organizations, unions, councils ect - We don't recognize
the state or the capitalist mode of production as being legitimate on the grounds that its undemocratic, therefore we refuse to participate in or acknowledge the prevailing power structures.

Anarchist organizations function outside the established unions - institutions ect. Every institution - state body ect is in essence an arm of the capitalist mode of production as such working within them would be futile. They are structured so as to preserve the economic base ie. unions exist to facilitate social mobility (within the capitalist hierarchy). Reformism is pointless we dont focus on the various branches - we focus on the root, we aim to reconstruct the very base of society.

Anarchist organizations aim mostly at heightening awareness of the current condition and highlighting the possible alternative. During slave society slavery was considered absolute, natural and inevitable - as was the feudal mode of organization ect - not one historical mode of organization has existed without the underlying ideology that it is natural - eternal ect we call this ''cultural hegomony'' whereby the upper class of the given society indoctrinates the populace with the notion that the given mode is ''unchangeable''.

As with every mass social change the prevalent ideology needs to be A - Shown as a meer ideology - broken and replaced with one that the people of the time consider more appropriate. Anarchist organizations spend a great deal of time undermining the hegomony of the upper class.

thats all very good and nice, but before this forum i had NEVER heard anarchist ideology come from anyone (except godofmusic on youtube). how are these views going to be spread to the rest of the world, there doesn't seem to be much anarchism being spread above ground so to speak.
this whole ideology seems to hinge upon awareness, education and enlightenment, and such levels that would be required could only come from exposure on a grander scale. precisely what are the awareness schemes and where are they targetting?

Quote :

thats all very good and nice, but before this forum i had NEVER heard anarchist ideology come from anyone (except godofmusic on youtube). how are these views going to be spread to the rest of the world, there doesn't seem to be much anarchism being spread above ground so to speak. this whole ideology seems to hinge upon awareness, education and enlightenment, and such levels that would be required could only come from exposure on a grander scale. precisely what are the awareness schemes and where are they targetting?

There are plenty of anarchist organizations over the world. The anarchist mode of organization functions as we speak in various places - the autonomus anarchist regions of Chipias in Mexico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation


The workers factories of Argentina

Inkus2000 wrote:

There are plenty of anarchist organizations over the world. The anarchist mode of organization functions as we speak in various places - the autonomus anarchist regions of Chipias in Mexico

its all very well having these groups in ledcs, but where are the medcs, the developed countries of the west, places like the UK, USA, Germany, Ireland etc? in what ways are the views being voiced above ground there, and by who?

is anarchism actually happening any where but south Amerika?

JackBrindelli wrote:

Inkus2000 wrote:

There are plenty of anarchist organizations over the world. The anarchist mode of organization functions as we speak in various places - the autonomus anarchist regions of Chipias in Mexico

its all very well having these groups in ledcs, but where are the medcs, the developed countries of the west, places like the UK, USA, Germany, Ireland etc? in what ways are the views being voiced above ground there, and by who?

is anarchism actually happening any where but south Amerika?

Unfortunately its not very popular in the US - however in Europe its huge, while its still relatively minor in comparison to socialism its growing rapidly. The largest Anarchist revolution in history occurred in Spain during the 1930s - the entire region of Catalonia embraced Anarchism - Barcelona ect. The Anarchist union (CNT) that started the revolution is still in operation. Catalonia remains an Anarchist stronghold within Spain.

In the UK there is a reasonable level of anarchism - while not as popular as on the continent. The Class war federation
is prevalent in the UK. The main organization within the UK would be the Anarchist federation - which also operates in Ireland, however the largest organization in the Rep of Ireland is the (Workers solidarity movement) - which again is mainly confined to the main urban centers.

WSM - Irish Anarchists





Alternative libertaire - French Anarchists



Greek Anarchists (Riot police tremble)




On the continent Anarchism has a substantially large following due to the history. In France - Alternative libertaire would be the largest organization, anarchism and libertarian socialism being huge traditionally amongst the youth/student population - Parisian anarchists played a large part in the May 68 revolt. In Italy there is the federation of Anarchist communists - ect ect - These are but a handful there are ''many'' more - most are interlinked at some level. All hold regular branch meetings, organize seminars - lectures, film screenings, bookfairs ect. Abandoned buildings are occupied and social events organized. Most anarchist organizations have branches in universities ect - I am a member of an Anarchist branch, we organize lectures - protests ect and act as a recruiting platform ''naturally''.

Greece remains the place where Anarchism is strongest in Europe - entire neighborhoods within Athens are considered (Anarchist boroughs) - there are so many anarchist organizations within Greece I wouldn't know where to begin - The Federation of Anarchists of Western Greece is one national body however within the cities scores exist. Many of the Geek anarchist organizations are extremely militant and organized as urban fighters- it has alot to do with history, the Anarchists and communists led the student movement against the military dictatorship back in the late 1970s.

Much of the current upheval - revolt is being co-ordinated and supported by anarchist organizations

nice to the post above good vid revolution!

This whole thread is very educational for anyone who is new to anarchism (or any other egalitarian / libertarian) philosophy. I'll be sure to add to all this later, but as for now I'm too tired. Keep on, Inkus.

I always had a sort of disgust with the idea of democracy, I really cannot stand the idea behind the opinion of a majority ruling over the opinion of a minority. I have heard that you would be able to opt the oppisit of what the majority wanted without any negitive consenquences but would that even be a democracy at all? Who is to say that majority has the best say? I see democracy as just another system of control promotes the idea of many over the idea of a few.

Wouldnt democracy abolish the idea of self-governing?

A.C.Joker wrote:

I always had a sort of disgust with the idea of democracy, I really cannot stand the idea behind the opinion of a majority ruling over the opinion of a minority. I have heard that you would be able to opt the oppisit of what the majority wanted without any negitive consenquences but would that even be a democracy at all? Who is to say that majority has the best say? I see democracy as just another system of control promotes the idea of many over the idea of a few.

What you say is true about capitalist democracy, because their can be no concensus between classes, so someone always loses (most always us). Besides, the doctrinal definition of democracy in Amerika (that is, what has been commonly accepted by our benevolent policy makers in Washington) is a disheartening one, to say the least. I'm refering of course to things like the "crisis of democracy" when too many working class folk get involved with what should be controlled by the "opulent minority" as opposed to the "underlying population" (First quote was coined by the Trilateral Commission. Last two quotes from James Madison).

Quote :

Wouldnt democracy abolish the idea of self-governing?

Well let's get ethymological. Demos (People) + Kratos (Power) = the power of the people. This is the true face of democracy, not what US capitalists would have you believe. Real democracy is grassroots oriented, therefore promoting self-government.

So it's all a matter of what definition you adhere to, the correct one, or the doctrinal one.

That's really a puzzling question...At first.Direct democracy is where the people rule.People who aren't anarchists say that direct democracy only works in a small,local area. Yeah right;a direct democracy means that the people have more power than the leaders have.That's kinda the point of anarchist society;people over government.Have you ever seen a person campaigning for Anarchy Party USA?No.That's because stateless society is a direct democracy where we vote for a dictator,and we have more power than they do.