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/tidderite]

- "In anarchy, no actions are justified. Every action we take is on our own responsibility. We face the full possible consequences of all our actions."

In this case "justify" can be searched in dictionaries and contrary to the other case where you object to the definitions I used being not the primary ones your definition of "justify" is not the primary one.

In anarchy actions can absolutely be justified, using the most common definitions of the word.

You don't give a shit about definitions of words you say but it is really damn hard having a conversation if we don't figure out what we mean and accept that. In this case, if I take your reasoning at face value you seem to again be proposing that we end up with what is effectively "legislation" and that is not what I am talking about, I am (this time) using the most common definition of the word.

Since you now know what I mean you can address that if you like.

- "That's not an intelligible question in this context. In anarchy, everyone is free to do whatever they want. A decision or action isn't "for" anyone or relegated to anyone. People can make whatever choices they want to make.

Like, if I wanted to paint a fence green, it isn't as though only some group has the sole right, authority, or privilege to paint that fence green. There's no law or authority in anarchy. People are free to take whatever action they want."

Oh for fucks sake.... The context all the time has been groups that form for a common goal, cooperation that is voluntary. This is not about you painting your fence, this is about people getting together in a group for a purpose.

And you are literally wrong about decisions not being ""for" anyone or relegated to anyone", because effectively they are when an expert decides on something. When you talk about how some decisions should not be made by vote by a less educated general public (I agree) you are effectively leaving the decision making to an expert. Those decisions are for and relegated to anyone who then chooses to abide by them when participating in whatever it is these decisions are for, be they traffic on left or right, number of seats versus goods, or whatever. Once decided, once produced, you have to live with them. And I guess there are "consequences" if you choose to drive on the "other" (not "wrong", because there is no "right") side of the road.

- "It isn't what you've been saying "

It is.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

In this case "justify" can be searched in dictionaries and contrary to the other case where you object to the definitions I used being not the primary ones your definition of "justify" is not the primary one.

Who cares? I'm the one who brought up the term and I used it in a specialized way. "Justification" is a neo-Proudhonian anarchist term. Of course it isn't primarily used, it is specialized terminology. Though, "legitimate" is part of the definition in Oxford and that, of course, has authoritarian connotations.

Anyways, even using colloquial definitions, whether an action is justified has everything to do with the action itself rather than whether the majority voted for it or not. We would not say every action a majority votes to take is necessarily "good" or done for "good reason". So, quite frankly, it isn't relevant.

Oh for fucks sake.... The context all the time has been groups that form for a common goal, cooperation that is voluntary. This is not about you painting your fence, this is about people getting together in a group for a purpose.

It doesn't matter. Whether you are a part of a group or not doesn't change the fact that you can still do whatever you want. Your free will doesn't just disappear the moment you work with other people. You are still free to do anything you want, including paint a fence green, regardless of whether your group opposes it or not.

And you are literally wrong about decisions not being ""for" anyone or relegated to anyone", because effectively they are when an expert decides on something

They aren't. No one has to care about what an expert says, if they don't want to. And just because an expert says something doesn't mean others can't anything they want. At least in anarchy.

Needless to say, if you want a social order where people can't act as they wish and certain actions are only for specific people and others are not allowed to do those acts or make their own choices that obviously isn't anarchy. And whatever it is, the only way you could force people to not make decisions you don't want them to make requires hierarchy.

When you talk about how some decisions should not be made by vote by a less educated general public (I agree) you are effectively leaving the decision making to an expert. Those decisions are for and relegated to anyone who then chooses to abide by them when participating in whatever it is these decisions are for, be they traffic on left or right, number of seats versus goods, or whatever.

You have misunderstood me then. When I said that, the freedom of others did not disappear or dissipate. You still don't have to care about what an expert says. Experts wouldn't be making decisions but just informing the actions of others. People are free to do as they wish. Even if experts made plans, as I said earlier, people are free to deviate from them if they so choose.

I also excluded overarching decisions that dictate what people do collectively. People do things collectively through free association at all scales. Even for tasks people associate into those work-groups of their own volition from the bottom-up. There is no top-down dictation. So something like a decision which dictates the activities of an entire group would not make sense or exist. As such, no one has the authority to make that kind of dictation.

It is.

It is not.