💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-democracy-anarchism-freedom.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:48:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Democracy, Anarchism, & Freedom Author: Wayne Price Date: June 3rd, 2017 Language: en Topics: democracy, social anarchism, freedom, c4ss Source: Retrieved on 7th August 2021 from https://c4ss.org/content/49237 Notes: This piece is the second essay in the https://c4ss.org/content/49206
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses
my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the
difference, is no democracy.”
—Abraham Lincoln
“Democracy” and “anarchism” are broad, vague, and hotly contested terms.
Even if we stick to specific definitions, there are still arguments
about what these definitions mean in practice. (Lincoln’s quotation,
above, seems to be about the preconditions for democracy.) This is not
just a linguistic dispute. The argument is not just over “democracy” but
over democracy, not just over “anarchism” but over anarchism. Still more
controversial is the relationship between these two broad terms.
I will use the definition of “democracy” as “rule of the commoners”—a
definition going back to classical Greece. The “commoners” were both the
majority of the population and the lower classes (of free, native-born,
males, in ancient Greece). By “anarchism” I mean total opposition to the
state, to capitalism (but not necessarily to the market), and to all
other forms of oppression. This is pretty broad, but it rules out
“anarcho-capitalists,” not to mention “national anarchists” (fascists).
On the relation between anarchism and democracy, anarchists have held
varying opinions (those who addressed the issue, anyway). Many reject
“democracy.” Mainly they make two arguments. One is that “democracy” is
the official ideology and rationalization of most capitalist states
today. They do not wish to support this ideology, the main justification
for the modern state. Instead, they wish to expose it and oppose it,
advocating “anarchism” as the goal. (They do not necessarily deny the
advantages of living under a capitalist democracy, as opposed to fascism
or Stalinism, say. But they point out that even the best capitalist
democracy is still really a form of rule by an elite minority of
capitalists and their agents.)
The other main argument raised by these anarchists is that anarchism, by
definition, rejects all forms of domination. This means domination of
the many by the few, but also of the few by the many (the “commoners,”
the working class, the “people”). Since “democracy” means a form of
rule, then anarchists must reject it, they argue.
However, there are other anarchists who regard themselves as supporters
of democracy. They claim that anarchism is the most extreme, radical,
form of democracy. This is my view (I have written two essays on this
topic; see Price 2009; 2916). I see both “democracy” and “anarchism” as
requiring decision-making by the people, from the bottom-up, through
cooperation, clashes of opinion, social experimentation, and group
intelligence.
But “democracy” means collective decision-making. It does not apply to
matters which are of individual or minority concern only, such as
individual sexual orientation, religion, or artistic taste. Free choice
should rule here, whatever the majority thinks.
Democratic anarchists recognize that “democracy” is used as an
ideological cover for the rule of a capitalist elite (it is still the
“dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”). The ideal of “democracy” is
contradicted by the reality of the state and capitalism. In fact, the
capitalists have never lived up to their “democratic” program. This
contradiction could be used to challenge the system, to expose its
fraudulent claim to be “democratic,” to justify opposition to the real
state. Almost no one in the U.S. is for “anarchism” or even “socialism,”
but almost everyone is “for” “democracy.” Why not use the ideal against
the reality?
Actually the capitalists limit their claim of “democracy” to the
government apparatus. They do not claim that their economy is
democratic. Instead they justify their corporations (totalitarian in
their internal organization) by using the rationalization of “freedom,”
specifically the “free market.” Anarchists make a revolutionary
challenge to capitalism by advocating a democratic economy. (For
example, a federation of worker-run industries, consumer co-ops, and
collective communes.)
Even those anarchists who reject “democracy” because of its ideological
use by the capitalists usually advocate “freedom” or “liberty.” But
these terms are just as much ideological watchwords of capitalist
society, used constantly to justify its un-free reality. If it is all
right to use “freedom” against the false proponents of freedom, then it
is all right to use “democracy” against the pretended advocates of
democracy.
Secondly, these anarchists deny that anarchism contradicts “democracy”
in principle. They point out that virtually all the anti-“democracy”
anarchists advocate “self-rule,” “self-governing,” and
“self-management.” These terms are no different than “direct democracy”
and “participatory democracy.”
If everyone is involved in governing (participatory democracy), then
there is no government—no special institution over society which rules
people. Anarchists are not against all social coordination, community
decision-making, and protection of the people. They are generally for
some sort of association of workplace committees and neighborhood
assemblies. They are for the replacement of the police and military by
an armed people (a democratic militia, so long as that is necessary).
This is the self-organization of the people—of the former working class
and oppressed population, until the heritage of class divisions and
oppression has been dissolved into a united population.
In short, what anarchists are against is not social organization but the
state. The state is a bureaucratic-military socially-alienated
organization of special forces (professional politicians and armed
people). It stands above and against the rest of society. Anarchists
want to abolish the state. They do not believe in the possibility of a
“transitional state” or a “workers’ state.” The self-organization of the
people, through popular assemblies and associations, needs to be
democratic (self-managing). Anarchism is democracy without the state.
The people themselves must be able to manage all of society from below.
Does this radical democracy still mean the coercion or domination of
some people by others? Let us imagine an industrial-agricultural commune
under anarchism. Some member proposes that it build a new road. People
have differing opinions. A decision will have to be made; either the
road will be built or it won’t (this is coercion by reality, not by the
police). Suppose a majority of the assembly decides in favor of
road-building. A minority disagrees. Perhaps it is outvoted (under
majority rule). Or perhaps it decides to “stand aside” so as not to
“block consensus” (under a consensus system).
Is the minority coerced? Its members have participated fully in the
community discussions which led up to the decision. They have been free
to argue for their viewpoint. They have been able to organize themselves
(in a caucus or “party”) to fight against building the road. In the end,
the minority members retain full rights. They may be in the majority on
the next issue. (Of course, dissatisfied members may leave the community
and go elsewhere. But other communities also have to decide whether to
build roads.)
The minority may be said to have been coerced on this road-building
issue, but I do not see this situation as one of domination. It is not
like a white majority consistently dominating its African-American
minority. In a stateless system of direct democracy, all participate in
decision-making, even if all individuals are not always satisfied with
the outcome. In any case, the aim of anarchism is not to end absolutely
all coercion, but to reduce coercion to the barest minimum possible.
Institutions of domination must be abolished and replaced by bottom-up
democratic-libertarian organization. But there will never be a perfect
society. This is why I began by defining “anarchism” as a society
without the state, capitalism, or other institutions of domination.
These issues are of vital importance under the Presidency of Donald
Trump, with its right-wing direction, and the fierce fight-back against
it (the “Resistance”). Supporters of Trump claim his right to attack the
people and the environment due to his election—this is “democracy” they
say. But his popular opponents also appeal to “democracy” in order to
de-legitimize him (“Not My President!”). They note that he lost the
popular vote, that there was voter suppression of People of Color, and
interference in the election by the FBI and by Russian agencies. But
their political strategy is still electoral, to elect Democrats. This is
an excellent time for revolutionary anarchists to identify with the
fight for democracy, even while rejecting the supposedly “democratic”
capitalist system which brought Trump about.
There are broader questions of anarchism and democracy which I am not
discussing here. How to form effective federations and networks while
still rooting them in face-to-face democracy in the workplace and
community? How to resolve conflicts of interest and opinion through
intelligent discussion? Such issues will be dealt with pluralistically
through experience and experimentation. A society based on radical
democracy and freedom will not be perfect. But it will give humanity a
chance to live productively, freely, and happily.
Price, Wayne (2016). “Are Anarchism and Democracy Opposed? A Response to
Crimethinc”:
Price, Wayne (2009). “Anarchism as Extreme Democracy.” The Utopian: