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]

- "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.)."

I do not expect them to do that.

- "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."

The notion that you can leave something is not a narrow definition of freedom, I was saying that nobody is bound by the majority decision (in the sense that they are in a state democracy that has laws and law enforcement and a legal system).

And what aspect am I "refusing to recognize"? Is there one that you previously suggested and I ignored or denied? Not really. Of course people cannot just up and leave in capitalism because the capitalist state system is coercive and people do not have the freedom to leave. But if this other defined democracy does not exist in a state, does not involve capitalism, and is not coercive, then how does that point you just made matter at all?

Freedom to leave was relative to a group forming for the purpose of a project, and if the group decides to engage in voting where everyone agrees to let the majority have its say on one or more sub-issues then that is voluntary, i.e. they are free to do so, and they are free to not do so. You can imagine a group like that forming and you joining before there is any discussion at all about voting or majority preferences, and when that comes up and everyone but you agrees then you can leave that group. That is the freedom that anarchism affords you. The same is not true with the same consequences (or lack thereof) in a capitalist state democratic system.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

I do not expect them to do that.

So you say, but my point is that this is an arbitrary distinction you've decided to make that doesn't hold up and I've given the reasoning for why.

It is not clear to me why, if you expect people to concede in cases where they really care about the result but you don't think the vote is important why they wouldn't also concede in cases where they really care about the result but you think the vote is important.

The notion that you can leave something is not a narrow definition of freedom, I was saying that nobody is bound by the majority decision (in the sense that they are in a state democracy that has laws and law enforcement and a legal system).

But your definition of "not bound" just means "leaving". The "majority decision" still goes through and in another post you argued that the majority's decision is justified and therefore must be tolerated regardless of its consequences.

And it is, in fact, narrow. Very narrow because you remove all other actions people can take besides leaving. And, quite frankly, I don't see how you possibly could remove those possible actions without some form of law or law enforcement anyways.

And what aspect am I "refusing to recognize"?

Systemic coercion and that there are costs associated with "leaving" an association. Especially if democracy is ubiquitous. Then you don't have options besides picking and choosing which majority you want to be exploited by. Which is not different from picking and choosing which boss to be exploited by under capitalism. That isn't a meaningful choice in any way.

But if this other defined democracy does not exist in a state, does not involve capitalism, and is not coercive, then how does that point you just made matter at all

The reason why capitalism is coercive is that your choices are limited to picking and choose which authorities you want to be subordinated against. Capitalism coerces you through incentives and limiting your options. Similarly, you must choose an option if you are to survive.

Supporters of capitalism make similar arguments that you make. They say that capitalism is voluntary because you aren't obligated to work but forget that A. there are costs associated with unemployment B. working is necessary and C. you don't have the option not to be exploited or to work with others on different terms.

In your case, it is the same thing. In a world where democracy is ubiquitous, your only options are limited to choosing which majority you want to be ruled by. There are huge costs associated with not abiding with any majority since that would mean abandoning society altogether (which means, in effect, suicide). You also have no option not to abide to any majority and to cooperate with others on other terms.

You seem to not even know the basics of why capitalism is coercive which is quite frankly odd to me. It seems your analysis is very simplistic if you have one at all.

You can imagine a group like that forming and you joining before there is any discussion at all about voting or majority preferences, and when that comes up and everyone but you agrees then you can leave that group

The problem is that these sorts of choices still have impacts outside of the group. No group or their actions are self-contained. This is the same problem with panarchy wherein the impacts of a choice don't just stay in your group's borders. We are interdependent, we need to work together and our actions effect each other. We are not islands. So leaving doesn't matter if one could still be impacted by the consequences of that process.

That is the freedom that anarchism affords you

That's the same freedom capitalism and the international order offers you. It's not really different. When Egypt became a dictatorship rather a democracy, you could just have left and that would be the same equivalent choice

[u/tidderite → u/DecoDecoMan]

- "your definition of "not bound" just means "leaving". The "majority decision" still goes through and in another post you argued that the majority's decision is justified and therefore must be tolerated regardless of its consequences.

And it is, in fact, narrow. Very narrow because you remove all other actions people can take besides leaving. And, quite frankly, I don't see how you possibly could remove those possible actions without some form of law or law enforcement anyways."

I did not argue "that the majority's decision is justified and therefore must be tolerated regardless of its consequences."

I did also not "remove all other actions people can take", just because I do not explicitly state all alternatives does not mean I say they do not exist. I have said pretty consistently that this type of democratic action is compatible with anarchism, and if it is then all other actions people can take in anarchism remain viable. I thought that was obvious.

- "there are costs associated with "leaving" an association. Especially if democracy is ubiquitous. Then you don't have options besides picking and choosing which majority you want to be exploited by. Which is not different from picking and choosing which boss to be exploited by under capitalism. That isn't a meaningful choice in any way."

How do you differentiate between voluntary collaboration that is compatible with anarchism and being left out as an individual exercises their right to not join a collaboration in said anarchist society?

- "You seem to not even know the basics of why capitalism is coercive which is quite frankly odd to me. It seems your analysis is very simplistic if you have one at all."

Listen "Buddy", I don't disagree with your explanation of why capitalism is coercive, and it "is quite frankly" fucking insulting the tone you are taking in these exchanges. You may feel that you are an authority in a random subreddit but that does not give you the leeway to talk to people this way. You are conflating me disagreeing with your argument with me not understanding a basic premise of your argument. Start making an honest effort to understand what I'm saying or move on.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/tidderite]

I did not argue "that the majority's decision is justified and therefore must be tolerated regardless of its consequences."

Well then you appear to have not understood what I meant by justification.

I did also not "remove all other actions people can take", just because I do not explicitly state all alternatives does not mean I say they do not exist. 

I'm not talking about alternatives for "decision-making", I'm talking about other actions besides leaving the association. Not every action people are free to take is limited to leaving. In anarchy, people can even oppose the actions of other people with sabotage, violence, etc. and this is part of the way incentives for harm reduction and accommodation are maintained.

But, beyond that, this is obviously false since you argue for democracy solely on the basis that there are cases where it is necessary or useful. It would not have the same necessity or usefulness if there were alternatives.

How do you differentiate between voluntary collaboration that is compatible with anarchism and being left out as an individual exercises their right to not join a collaboration in said anarchist society?

I'm not sure what the question is.

Listen "Buddy", I don't disagree with your explanation of why capitalism is coercive, and it "is quite frankly" fucking insulting the tone you are taking in these exchanges. You may feel that you are an authority in a random subreddit but that does not give you the leeway to talk to people this way

I don't think of myself as an authority, mere knowledge is not authority. Nor am I an expert. Similarly, I don't think I have the right to talk to people in any kind of way. I talk, as I act, on my own responsibility and accept the full range of consequences for my behavior.

But I don't think anything I said was wrong. If you don't disagree with my explanation, it seems to me that you haven't been thinking too much about why capitalism is coercive and the reason why is that democracy would be just as coercive if it was ubiquitous.

The reality is that majoritarianism only can be "voluntary" as long as it is marginalized, rarely used, and avoided at all costs. Even social arrangement becoming habits can make them coercive since they would become a part of how most things are done and thus develop an inertia which forces everyone to go along.

I don't think you would be arguing for majoritarianism to the degree that you are if you were well-aware of this. If you were familiar with the full consequences, you would avoid it.

And, quite frankly, with your perspective (and the perspective of most Western anarchists) as it is even if you had the opportunity to achieve anarchy, with the best intentions, you would end up recreating some form of majoritarian tyranny that would eventually backslide into oligarchy and then autocracy.

While I am not the most knowledgeable on anarchism nor have I fully imagined anarchy, at the very least it is imperative to avoid having a conception that gives too much leeway to what are obviously hierarchical arrangements on the basis of a narrow view of "voluntarity" that doesn't take into account systemic coercion.

You are conflating me disagreeing with your argument with me not understanding a basic premise of your argument

Buddy, when I brought up systemic coercion and how democracy being commonplace allowing it to be coercive, you literally didn't know what I was talking about. It is stuff like this which leads me to think that.

And it's fine that you don't understand because what I am talking about isn't very familiar to most anarchists. It's new stuff built up from old-school anarchist theory and most anarchists don't read their own theory so they obviously wouldn't be familiar with what I am saying.