Hi I've been worrying about a few things regarding libertarian-communism/ anarcho-syndicalism and I'm wondering if anybody was interested in helping me with them, thanks
--
1. Would it be possible if consensus couldn't be achieved for councils to also send delegates to represent the views of those in the minority? So for example a majority delegate might have 70% of their council's vote while a minority delegate would have 30% of it. All of my following questions are written presuming this would be okay.
2. Is secret ballot possible in an anarcho-syndicalist system? I'm worried some people might not want to vote if they couldn't do it anonymously, even if everyone was always nice and never judgemental.
I'm also sort of afraid people might still not want to attend meetings even WITH secret ballot because they feel that since councils are small groups of people regularly meeting face-to-face others within their council might be able to suspect how they voted or because they didn't want to do or feel expected to do things like public speaking. I'm also worried meetings might not always be friendly discussions but could turn into hostile arguments between people which aside from being just bad in itself would also discourage people from voting and participating.
I can't find much information about what anarchists think of secret ballot; I know some don't like it but to be fair it was one of the demands of the Krondstadt rebellion. Personally I just want it to be possible for people if they wanted it.
But for example these following problems I've been thinking about could basically be solved by abolishing secret ballot and forcing everyone to publicly speak or give their opinions. But if people wanted to keep secret ballot I can't think of any really good solutions to them.
3. I really like how in anarcho-syndicalism people can easily change which delegate and mandate they support.
For example let's say I voted for a delegate with a mandate that included building a hydroelectric dam. If I later realized that this dam was a bad idea I could just go to the next say monthly meeting (or maybe call an emergency one somehow) and when it was time to pick delegates and vote for that month's mandate I could vote for a delegate and their mandate that was against the dam. I think this is an important feature to have and I think it's good that people can easily change their vote without having to call a referendum on every issue which would probably be annoying and time-consuming for everyone.
But my fear is that this only works if people agreed with everything that was in the new mandate which I don't think is always possible.
I'm worried people that people might strongly disagree with their usual delegate on an issue wouldn't be able to just change their vote to a delegate who they did agree with on that issue because they strongly disagreed with them on everything else.
I think that it makes sense that rejecting and supporting proposals should be a seperate from voting for a delegate. For example if I want to support a specific proposal to build a windfarm I can do so without voting for the specific person that proposed it to be my delegate on every single issue. I also think that for example if my delegate came back from a higher council meeting and wanted to propose building a windfarm I think I should be able to reject this decision without having to replace my delegate with a new one. But I don't think this solves the problem. What if after I rejected the windfarm proposal I later realize I was wrong- How would I be able to change my vote without violating secret ballot or just re-voting on every single issue every month?
4. I'm wondering how an anarcho-syndicalist system would deal with people having multiple jobs.
How would you prevent people who perhaps worked more jobs than other people getting more votes when delegates from all the different workplaces in a region met to deliberate and vote on worker and production issues because they would have voted for a delegate in each of their workplaces?
Also if people are going to have multiple jobs and/or rotate them how would people even be able to attend all the meetings? For example if I worked 5 different jobs in a year I think it'd be really hard to attend 5 different say monthly meetings even if they were being held at some sort of central conference centre let alone at each individual workplace.
Forgive me if I appear to side step some of your questions.
I do not imagine a society organized along anarcho-communist lines as solely comprised of people who are doctrinaire politicos. Many folk will simply see it as a rational, though not a perfect system of organizing. There would be lots of discussion and compromises made, as sometimes a decision could be for or against your own position. In practice, decision making would be shaped by learning from experience, rather than following a set blueprint. Hence the need for maximum transparency to be able to draw accurate assessments. Secret ballots to arrive at a decision may be used at times – though it implies that some people are more trustworthy than others (as presumably some ‘trusties’ would be needed to supervise the ballot). Minority rights are important, as free/direct democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority.
The structure of individual councils I suspect will be based on the desires and agreement of the people involved. Over time some models may prove more successful than others. By ‘successful’ I mean in satisfying the needs of those involved. This would necessitate fraternal relations with other councils based on a free exchange of goods and services following the rejection of the market system (free communism).
I would not wish to see a society where everyone had to attend all meetings. Nor a society where anyone was excluded from any meeting. The fear of attending or not attending meetings would I believe dissipate, as the new society, based on mutual aid supersedes the capitalism system of class coercion and exploitation.
Your concern over multiple jobs is I think misplaced. Decision making based on the workplace would disenfranchise many or most people in society. Councils should be communist – based on those who live within the commune.
Free from the alienation of capitalism and the disappearance of paid employment, the nature of work and play will fuse, as humanity is transformed for the first time into whole human beings. Political skullduggery will pass into history.