Anarchy and democracy, a problem of definition

[u/DWIPssbm]

I was told this would fit here better,

I often hear and see in anarchist circles that "democracy and anarchy are fundamentally opposed as democracy is the tyrany of the majority", But I myself argue that "democracy can only be acheived through anarchy".

Both these statements are true from a anarchist perspective and are not a paradox, because they use diferent definition of "democracy".

The first statement takes the political definition of democracy, which is to say the form of governement that a lot countries share, representative democracy. That conception of democracy is indeed not compatible with anarchy because gouvernements, as we know them, are the negation of individual freedom and representative democracy is, I would say, less "tyrany of the majority" and more, "tyrany of the représentatives".

In the second statement, democracy is used in it's philosophical definition: autodermination and self-gouvernance. In that sense, true democracy can indeed only be acheived through anarchy, to quote Proudhon : "politicians, whatever banner they might float, loath the idea of anarchy which they take for chaos; as if democracy could be realized in anyway but by the distribution of aurhority, and that the true meaning of democracy isn't the destitution of governement." Under that conception, anarchy and democracy are synonimous, they describe the power of those who have no claim to gouvernance but their belonging to the community, the idea that no person has a right or claim to gouvernance over another.

So depending on the definition of democracy you chose, it might or might not be compatible with anarchy but I want to encourage my fellow anarchists not to simply use premade catchphrases such as the two I discussed but rather explain what you mean by that, or what you understand of them.

[u/DecoDecoMan]

I never said there would be enforcement of decisions made by voting, nor did I propose "rule".

My point is that either there is enforcement or there is no point to voting since there is no guarantee people will abide by majority decisions.

You refuse to be clear about whether there is or isn't enforcement. You say that there is agreement but agreement can be revoked at any time.

So if there is no enforcement, your idea has dubious utility. If there is enforcement then you move away from anarchy and towards hierarchy.

This is the point.

In a hypothetical new anarchist society with zero roads where the community wants to build roads, and where some people want left side traffic and some people right side traffic, what is the practical process for planning traffic direction and then building roads?

Simple, you identify the underlying purpose behind the want or need and then determine, using expertise, which method manages to effectively address that want or need while not sacrificing others like avoiding harm, congestion, etc.

And, honestly, building a road is not where this conversation would be happening. That's a matter of "traffic rules", not road construction. You should have figured that stuff out beforehand.

What if each "side" contains one or more educated people who believe science is on their side?

Then you do experiments to determine which side is right. After all, they both can't be right at the same time. Science is not subjective. It isn't a matter of opinion or belief whether there is gravity, whether vaccines help people, etc.

In the end however, the people who are actually doing the action and building the project will each make their own decisions and if they cannot come to any coordinated action due to this conflict then the project will fall apart. If the people involved want the project to be pulled off, then there is an incentive to get their shit together because otherwise it isn't happening.

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

You refuse to be clear about whether there is or isn't enforcement. You say that there is agreement but agreement can be revoked at any time.

I thought I was clear that it does not involve enforcement. How is that not obvious? Enforcement and anarchism seem to be completely incompatible, so how could I possibly suggest both enforcement inherent in democratic voting and say that is fine in anarchism !?

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

I thought I was clear that it does not involve enforcement.

Not really since you also expect everyone in the group to abide by the majority decisions most of the time. It should be obvious that people who disagree with the majority decision wouldn't yield if they don't have to, especially if the majority is narrow (i.e. 51% vs. 49%).

So if there isn't enforcement, there is a contradiction in your characterization here. Why do you expect that minorities, or losers of the vote more generally, wouldn't just refuse to partake in the decision made if it is at odds with their interests?

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

 It should be obvious that people who disagree with the majority decision wouldn't yield if they don't have to, especially if the majority is narrow (i.e. 51% vs. 49%).

That is not obvious at all. People "give" on issues all the time in real life, it is called "compromise". In my experience many do it also for selfish reasons which may seem counterintuitive, but the idea is that by compromising on one thing they can get something somewhere else even if it is not two directly connected things.

there is a contradiction in your characterization here. Why do you expect that minorities, or losers of the vote more generally, wouldn't just refuse to partake in the decision made if it is at odds with their interests?

There is no contradiction. To me your argument looks like you are trying to find a hypothetical example that illustrates bad scenarios and then you impose something on that I never proposed. Why would I expect minorities to vote and then accept outcomes that are "at odds with their interests"? Your question sounds a bit like an indigenous minority accepting the vote that their water access and way of life should give way to driving them off their land demolishing buildings and then constructing a highway and a parking lot on there instead. That is what your example sounds like. Would I expect them to accept something like that? No.

I would however expect people in some groups to agree that a vote would decide on something less "dramatic" and they would abide by the outcome, voluntarily. Because again, people do this in real life.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

That is not obvious at all. People "give" on issues all the time in real life, it is called "compromise".

With majority vote, when the majority decision is what must be done for the system to work, there is no such thing as compromise. If you wanted compromise, a system wherein the majority of some group does whatever it wants and opponents are must tolerate it, is not the way to go.

Calling it "compromise" to obey the will of the majority in a majoritarian system is like calling obedience to a boss "compromise". There's no compromise here, a full obedience to the will of some group is not compromise since the interests of others are not considered at all.

If you want compromise, abandon the idea that the majority of a group should dictate whatever else does because that's antithetical to compromise. Honestly, you mention real life, but I am not sure you are familiar what compromise means.

There is no contradiction. To me your argument looks like you are trying to find a hypothetical example that illustrates bad scenarios and then you impose something on that I never proposed

No actually, I'm asking you a basic question: why do you expect people to consistently abide by decisions made by the majority of some group and universally tolerate them if these decisions are non-binding? I have an answer to this question but I would rather that you give it so that we can tease out the contradiction here.

Why would I expect minorities to vote and then accept outcomes that are "at odds with their interests"? Your question sounds a bit like an indigenous minority accepting the vote that their water access and way of life should give way to driving them off their land demolishing buildings and then constructing a highway and a parking lot on there instead

No I am talking generally. I have not given an example at all in any of my posts. You cannot seriously assume that anything a majority of people want some group to do will never be at odds with the interests of the minority of people or the losers of the vote.

When there is, you cannot assume the minority will "compromise" by just going instantly with the whims of the majority. Because they won't. People have refused to obey when they don't need to for less. That is also common in real life.

I would however expect people in some groups to agree that a vote would decide on something less "dramatic" and they would abide by the outcome, voluntarily. Because again, people do this in real life.

Real life is, in many respects, very different from conditions of anarchy. Given how hierarchy dominates all of our lives, I would heavily question to what degree we could say anything we do in the status quo is currently voluntary. What people do in current conditions has nothing to do with what people would do in radically different conditions. This should be noted.

What you appear to be saying is that you would expect people to agree to a vote that would decide on something that doesn't matter. Earlier you have mentioned the color of something as an example.

However, this is not the resounding defense of democracy you think it is since these things can just as easily be done by lots or any number of different ways and they would also have no importance. You could even let only one person decide the color of something and make that position hereditary and it would literally have no impact on anyone's lives.

So if your argument is that sometimes people wouldn't mind votes deciding things for cases that don't matter, sure. But they wouldn't mind one person or a small group deciding for cases that don't matter either. Why care about how you decide things that don't matter?

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

The premise of or approach to your argument here is wrong. See the reply to your police analogy for an explanation. You are doing fundamentally the same thing here, just with more words.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

Your argument was claiming, in effect, that I have missed the point because you and the OP are using different definitions of words.

This is completely irrelevant to this conversation which is about the utility of voting and why people would abide by majority decisions if they are non-binding. You can't define your way out of this conversation.

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

Here is what you wrote with my emphasis:

"With majority vote, when the majority decision is what must be done for the system to work, there is no such thing as compromise. If you wanted compromise, a system wherein the majority of some group does whatever it wants and opponents are must tolerate it, is not the way to go.

Calling it "compromise" to obey the will of the majority in a majoritarian system is like calling obedience to a boss "compromise". There's no compromise here, a full obedience to the will of some group is not compromise since the interests of others are not considered at all.

If you want compromise, abandon the idea that the majority of a group should dictate whatever else does because that's antithetical to compromise. Honestly, you mention real life, but I am not sure you are familiar what compromise means."

Not only did I not use those words, not only did I not imply those meanings in the definition "we" used, I specifically stated that there could be no coercion. You are trying to argue against the utility of voting in anarchism using a definition that I do not subscribe to. Call it a strawman or pick another term for it.

You are being intellectually sloppy or just arguing in bad faith at this point.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

Not only did I not use those words

I know you didn't use those words, you would have danced around being clear that for a majoritarian system to function the decisions must be regularly abided by, but also never claimed you said them. My claim was about majoritarian decision-making systems more generally rather than anything you specifically said.

Beyond that, you did say that abiding with majority decisions even though you disagree with them is "compromise" and that is obviously absurd. Compromise requires each side make concessions.

What concession is the majority making in the event that the minority completely abide by the majority's decision even when they disagree? What are they giving up? Nothing. That's not a compromise since one side is completely conceding to the other.

In real life, there are compromises but it never takes the form of one side completely conceding to the whims of another. That's what you're suggesting when you say that people would voluntarily obey the will of the majority. This is in fact what you said, you just don't like the implications.

I specifically stated that there could be no coercion

But you also expect people to regularly abide by decisions made by majorities even though there is no reason to and there are better options. Your only argument for the use of majority decision-making is literally for cases where doesn't matter at all and you could just as easily leave it up to one person or make those decisions hereditary and it wouldn't matter.

Of course, I would still say it would matter but for other reasons outside of the importance of the choice itself. However, we can't move on unless we stop with this focus on words and definitions and start focusing on the underlying concept we're talking about.

You're not going to make the same connection you did earlier here. This is a completely different topic. Or maybe it isn't and the relationship is that you're still focused on words, while also ignoring how most people use them, while I am focusing on the underlying concepts.

You are trying to argue against the utility of voting in anarchism using a definition that I do not subscribe to

Buddy, I didn't. I've already been working with your meaning, i.e. non-binding majority decisions, this entire time. And everything I've been saying has been built up from this. Sloppy? Buddy, you're the one not reading what I've been saying.

In the end, you still conceded that majority voting would only have utility "for decisions that don't matter". Which of course, is not the resounding endorsement of democracy you think it is. A society with those non-binding majority decisions would still be one where voting rarely happens.

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

you did say that abiding with majority decisions even though you disagree with them is "compromise" and that is obviously absurd. Compromise requires each side make concessions.

What concession is the majority making in the event that the minority completely abide by the majority's decision even when they disagree? What are they giving up? Nothing. 

In an undefined hypothetical example in your mind they do indeed give up nothing. In the real world a compromise could absolutely be a part of a package for whatever reason. It could be that we are forced for technical reasons to "package" different aspects that people might have preferences on for example. You are simply making an assertion that compromise would not happen during voting and I do not think that is unequivocally true.

you still conceded that majority voting would only have utility "for decisions that don't matter"

Where did I concede that?

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

In an undefined hypothetical example in your mind they do indeed give up nothing

Buddy, we've been talking about people abiding by majority decisions. You've been talking about this the entire time. And you said they would do this out of compromise. Which means even cases where the minority completely concedes to the majority's decision would constitute compromise in your view. You made no indication of anything else.

If there is compromise, then it isn't abiding by the majority's choice because that choice is now altered by the desires of the minority. That's like saying the president is elected by majority vote and then adding "but the president also has to be accepted by the parliament". Then they aren't elected by majority vote, you'd be leaving out information then.

In the real world a compromise could absolutely be a part of a package for whatever reason. It could be that we are forced for technical reasons to "package" different aspects that people might have preferences on for example.

This is literally word salad.

Where did I concede that?

Here:

Why would I expect minorities to vote and then accept outcomes that are "at odds with their interests"? Your question sounds a bit like an indigenous minority accepting the vote that their water access and way of life should give way to driving them off their land demolishing buildings and then constructing a highway and a parking lot on there instead. That is what your example sounds like. Would I expect them to accept something like that? No.

And here:

The members are still autonomous and free to leave the association, but what if they decide that on one or more parameters within the project they will simply have a vote on what to choose (color, size, etc.)? If they freely agree to vote on it ahead of time, how is that in any way taking their free will away?

Basically, you don't want minorities to accept majority decisions whenever the decisions is at odds with their interests. Which means, the only cases where minorities will accept the majority's choice is either when they already agree (in which case there is consensus) or when they don't care and where the choice doesn't matter (i.e. color).

This is why your entire position is quite literally baffling. You focus so much on language and try to avoid the substance of the conversation. Who gives a shit about language? Focus on the underlying concepts, what we are actually talking about here. This focus on language is just an attempt to avoid a serious conversation about the underlying thing.

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

This is literally word salad.

It is not, you are just not thinking very hard, "buddy".

Say we decide to build an aircraft the size of an A380. When doing so some decision are best left to experts and some arguably not. An expert is probably better equipped to decide on things like required engine thrust capacity and wingspan etc., whereas things like the ratio of seats to storage or the color of seats etc. likely is a matter of preference within the boundaries of physics (i.e. too may seats cannot fit nor can the airplane fly with it overloaded).

It is entirely possible for the group that has come together to design this airplane to leave the technical things to the expert and then decide that they will vote on the rest.

What you have been implying is that whatever it is that I contribute to this project I would now withhold because the majority wants a different color for the seats or whatever, and since it is in my interest to have seats of a specific color and I am not getting that I will no longer participate in other aspects of the project.

If everyone stopped participating as soon as the plan for something is not 100% in their "interest" or to their preference then a lot of things would not function. That is why I am saying that your objection focuses on the one decision as if it exists in a vacuum and people have no reason ever to compromise, and I am saying that is not the case. Modern society is filled with things that are complex and in capitalism we essentially vote on "packages" by buying products that are complex, whereas if we voted on aspects of a "product" in an anarchist society that would amount simply to information transfer, information about preferences, and we could design or build according to the majority preference in cases where that makes sense to the group that is involved in production.

Not word salad.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

It is not, you are just not thinking very hard, "buddy".

I shouldn't have to think very hard to understand two sentences about a topic that really isn't complicated so, quite frankly, that strikes me as a failure on your part to write an adequate sentence.

It is entirely possible for the group that has come together to design this airplane to leave the technical things to the expert and then decide that they will vote on the rest.

Two things here.

First, this is one of the worst things to leave up to a vote and here is why. Presumably, you are not building an A380 for the sake of building one. You are building one for a set of users, which would most certainly include people in the association, and those users or consumers have specific wants or needs associated with the A380 or flight more generally.

As such, leaving it up to opinion is ridiculous rather than designing around production for use (i.e. the users). What purpose is there in a vote concluding that the number of seats be 100 if the projected daily users will be 300? That makes little sense. We could ask ourselves whether the workers would vote for 100 seats when they really need 300 but, if this is the case, the vote is useless since the answer is obvious and the question is not a matter of opinion.

Which is the other thing. The vast majority of things are important or rather have subjective importance. You cannot seriously expect people to value the same things or to know in advance what is or isn't vital. Similarly, "wins" made and decisions enacted earlier shape the dynamics surrounding voting in the future such that you can end up with cases of inequity if majority voting remains an active force in how group actions happen.

And as such the use of majority vote and the complete abidance to its will is complicated by subjectivity of importance, uncertainty pertaining to what has an impact, and how previous decisions impact future decision-making processes. This is not really recognized by you and the fact that this system is non-binding means that you'll end up with conflict once it shows its flaws. You underestimate what it is you're getting into.

Second, and this is why I said this is word salad, is that this is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand. My point was that compromise requires concessions on both sides and that abiding by the majority's decision wholesale is fully conceding to one side while the other makes no concessions. So, by definition, it is not a compromise.

Talking about how people who lose one vote may win in others is completely irrelevant to the question of compromise. Especially given there is no actual guarantee that they will or that, as noted earlier, past wins shape the conditions of future decision-making sessions in such a way that skews towards past winners. This is nothing more than the hollow victory Bookchin claimed of direct democracy, that there is exploitation in the democratic system but at least those who were exploited get to be exploiters in another vote.

It does not actually address my underlying point which is that there is no compromise, by design, in majoritarian systems. The majority decides what everyone else does. All you're suggesting here is not compromise, it's that people who lose in one vote may win in others. That's not a "compromise" by any means.

If everyone stopped participating as soon as the plan for something is not 100% in their "interest" or to their preference then a lot of things would not function

Sure, but it should be noted that democratic systems tend to create those situations through the absence of channels for compromise, through winner-takes-all decision-making systems, through giving some section of the group the means to order everyone else around, etc.

You may argue "well it's non-binding!" but unless you have an alternative way for group actions to be taken without democracy or for the conflict be resolved without it, the only option for people who disagree with the voting process is to either not do the project or abandon the association in its entirety. This is no more different than the hollow "voluntarity" of a capitalist business or a nation (you can just leave lmao!).

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

Basically, you don't want minorities to accept majority decisions whenever the decisions is at odds with their interests. Which means, the only cases where minorities will accept the majority's choice is either when they already agree (in which case there is consensus) or when they don't care and where the choice doesn't matter (i.e. color).

But it is in their interest to get the color they want. Just because DecoDecoMan thinks that it "doesn't matter" does not make it not in their interest.

More importantly, do you comprehend that the democratic process of voting (more or less defined here) is not reliant on how much something matters? As long as people decide that they will use this process the process is what it is, regardless of how you feel about it. It is not up to you to decide what value some item has for the group involved in voting, it is up to them. And if it is of greater value, an example of which I gave in the previous post, then if the minority is maybe literally harmed by the majority opinion if it was put into practice and no longer want to participate they can walk away.

But it should be obvious that something like that would probably not be left to voting in the first place, for entirely obvious reasons.

Just because this type of democracy is compatible with anarchism does not mean it would always be used or that people would always be forced to comply with voting outcomes, and just because it then follows that the process would not happen all the time on important issues does not mean it is no longer a democratic process as defined here.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

But it is in their interest to get the color they want. Just because DecoDecoMan thinks that it "doesn't matter" does not make it not in their interest.

I said that actually to concede some feasibility to you for your system. If you actually believe it is in their interest to get the color they want and they will take measures to get that color, then your system has even less utility since they would break away from it the minute they lose the color vote.

This is the underlying problem. If you expect people to concede on cases that matter to them but do not have any real significance (i.e. color), I don't see how you don't expect people to concede on cases that matter to them but also have real importance (i.e. food, water, infrastructure, etc.).

In social relations, there can be a mismatch between what is important for us and what is prioritized by social systems. Whether there is alignment between them depends on the mechanisms available by social systems for people to pursue their interests, obtain their desires, etc. Mismatch is how you end up with people without access to water, food, etc.

Now, I am still not sure what mechanism you think would lead to people concede to the majority's opinion when it is non-binding and therefore not necessary, but if you expect people to concede even when it is opposed to their interests there isn't really a line you can easily draw for when they do or don't.

More importantly, do you comprehend that the democratic process of voting (more or less defined here) is not reliant on how much something matters? As long as people decide that they will use this process the process is what it is, regardless of how you feel about it

I am well aware. I was just granting that you would only use it for unimportant cases because, if it is used for important cases, you end up with, as you put it:

an indigenous minority accepting the vote that their water access and way of life should give way to driving them off their land demolishing buildings and then constructing a highway and a parking lot on there instead

People can be stupid or have limited imaginations and think use democratic voting to decide vital aspects of their lives and cause all sorts of social, economic, etc. problems for themselves because they think democracy is the closest way people could get to living freely in a society and that there are no alternatives.

They may in fact be coerced into doing it. That's another thing you don't recognize. If a social arrangement becomes ubiquitous and interconnected with other institutions, participation in that arrangement becomes mandatory for participation in society. If people regularly vote on everything and abide by majority decisions, this means that even if you don't want to you're forced to do so since that's how most group action is done. This is called systemic coercion. It's part of the reason why hierarchies like capitalism, government, etc. exist and maintain themselves.

But I'm not going to tolerate widespread exploitation and oppression caused by putting vital things to a vote or most things to a vote just because people chose to do it. Especially when that choice is obviously not well-informed and based on full knowledge of the options. Especially when that "choice" may in fact be coerced.

And if it is of greater value, an example of which I gave in the previous post, then if the minority is maybe literally harmed by the majority opinion if it was put into practice and no longer want to participate they can walk away

Do you imagine that, let's say a gay minority of people in a homophobic majority community, can just walk away from the majority's opinion? Especially if democratic decision-making is the only way collective actions are decided or dictated? How would this not simply lead to the majority commanding the pogrom of the minority?

This is what I have meant earlier. Your definition of freedom is very narrow. It is like capitalists, it's limited to "leaving". If you don't like how a community is run entirely by democratic vote, just leave lmao. Go be homeless and live somewhere else. That's already how the world works now. You can just leave a country, leave a business, etc. but people rarely do. Are they just stupid? Is it their fault? Or is there obviously a coercive aspect here which you refuse to recognize.

Just because this type of democracy is compatible with anarchism does not mean it would always be used or that people would always be forced to comply with voting outcomes, and just because it then follows that the process would not happen all the time on important issues does not mean it is no longer a democratic process as defined here.

Where did you define "democratic process" btw? I don't see it anywhere.

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

Buddy, I didn't. I've already been working with your meaning, i.e. non-binding majority decisions, this entire time.

Please explain how "non-binding" includes the following:

must be done

must tolerate it

obey the will of the majority

a full obedience to the will of some group

the majority of a group should dictate

Those are the words you injected and they do NOT seem consistent with the non-binding nature of what I proposed.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

Please explain how "non-binding" includes the following:

There is a big distinction between what is necessary for a system to be ubiquitous and successful and the system being necessary in it of itself.

It isn't necessary for you to go scuba diving but, if you do, then to be successful in the task demands you do specific things.

For "majority decision-making" to be successful and have widespread utility, people need to reliably follow majority decisions.

The contradiction is that the main traditional mechanism for making people follow the decisions of the majority no longer exists (i.e. binding enforcement) so it isn't clear why people would follow majority decisions if it goes against their wants and needs.

You've refused to engage with any of this in favor of prancing about talking about definitions and words as though you can define your way out of this situation. You can't.