Democracy and Majority Rule

I am of the latter category of anarchist myself. I don't think we have democracy, but oligarchy and see anarchism as a real democracy.

This made me think and question my views on democracy as part of the anarchist ideal.

https://libcom.org/library/against-democracy-wildcat-uk

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy

If we look at world history over the course of the past several centuries, it is hard to miss the fact that democracy has been advancing, albeit in fit and starts. The notion that people have the right to rule themselves is a near universal idea and it shows little sign of weakening. Democracy has not only extended itself geographically, but it has deepened internally (16yr olds, for instance, voting in the Scottish referendum)

This extension of democracy does not apply to the economic realm. Democratic rights in the work-place have rarely been granted without a fight. Economic democracy (or what was once was called industrial democracy) is essentially off-limits under capitalism.

I'm in favour of majority rule with minority 'rights' for want of a better term, not tyranny of majority or minority.

This made me think and question my views on democracy as part of the anarchist ideal.

https://libcom.org/library/against-democracy-wildcat-uk

I hated that thing. Wildcat has always been incomprehensible to me and this piece was comprehensible, but it was also edgy and stupid. That said, critiques of democracy tend to go that way, whether it's Bordiga's or CrimeThInc's. This is because democracy is really just a form of decision making, and it is the best form of decision making since it allows those who participate in an institution to organize it collectively. I don't see an alternative to it for libertarian communists.

The 'Wildcat(UK)' critique of the concept and practice of 'Democracy' was heavily influenced by that of the GCI/ICG group several of who's texts are available and cross referenced on this site. One of the few extended and Marxist influenced critiques of the GCI/ICG formulation is that of Roi Ferreiro in their text 'Democracy Mystified' also available on this site and on which I have briefly commented. Something of value can still be derived by a critical reading of both sets of texts.

deathspiritcommunist

This made me think and question my views on democracy as part of the anarchist ideal.

https://libcom.org/library/against-democracy-wildcat-uk

I hated that thing. Wildcat has always been incomprehensible to me and this piece was comprehensible, but it was also edgy and stupid. That said, critiques of democracy tend to go that way, whether it's Bordiga's or CrimeThInc's. This is because democracy is really just a form of decision making, and it is the best form of decision making since it allows those who participate in an institution to organize it collectively. I don't see an alternative to it for libertarian communists.

I linked in a comrade to the Wildcat thing and we both agreed that there was a lot of bullshit in there but that it also bought up some interesting points about the nature of anarchist democracy. I intend re-reading it and trying to figure out why it unsettled me on a matter that I thought I was pretty confirmed on my view.
Also, is it just my imagination or was it purposely written in a humorous way? I found it pretty amusing.

.

Noah Fence

deathspiritcommunist

This made me think and question my views on democracy as part of the anarchist ideal.

https://libcom.org/library/against-democracy-wildcat-uk

I hated that thing. Wildcat has always been incomprehensible to me and this piece was comprehensible, but it was also edgy and stupid. That said, critiques of democracy tend to go that way, whether it's Bordiga's or CrimeThInc's. This is because democracy is really just a form of decision making, and it is the best form of decision making since it allows those who participate in an institution to organize it collectively. I don't see an alternative to it for libertarian communists.

I linked in a comrade to the Wildcat thing and we both agreed that there was a lot of bullshit in there but that it also bought up some interesting points about the nature of anarchist democracy. I intend re-reading it and trying to figure out why it unsettled me on a matter that I thought I was pretty confirmed on my view.
Also, is it just my imagination or was it purposely written in a humorous way? I found it pretty amusing.

Idk, I didn't take it as a joke. Maybe I was just being naive about that, but.

Ivysyn

I never thought the article was meant to be a joke, but having just re-read it and laughed out loud several times I’m convinced that it is intentionally humorous...

I think that, in general, demands for rights are an expression of the weakness of our class. Instead of saying to our enemies "if you lay a finger on us you'll get your fucking head kicked in", or even just kicking their heads in anyway, we tend to say "please respect our rights, we don't really mean you any harm".

See what I mean?

Anyways, I actually like the thrust of this article but it seems to fall very short in demonstrating the practical possibilities of organising a libertarian society without some means of democratic decision making.

jondwhite

I'm in favour of majority rule with minority 'rights' for want of a better term, not tyranny of majority or minority.

Jondwhite, if you see this, can you elaborate on what you mean?

What would these minority rights be?

I think majority rules direct democracy is the best way to make collective decisions. That said, I have concerns about tyranny of the majority. I'm very interested in any ideas or insights about how to navigate this risk.

Anyone else who wants to chime in, please do! :)

Edit: Is it just me, or does the libcom smiley face look a bit creepy?

Spikymike

Something of value can still be derived by a critical reading of both sets of texts.

Yeah that's how I see it, too.

I read the Wildcat article. Generally I disagreed with it, but I think they make a very important point here

The miners' strike in the UK in 1984-5 provided many inspiring examples of how the class struggle is anti-democratic in practice. The strike itself did not start democratically – there was no ballot, no series of mass meetings. It began with walk-outs at a few pits threatened with closure, and was then spread by flying pickets. Throughout the strike there was an unholy alliance of the right-wing of the Labour Party and the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party) saying that the miners should hold a national ballot. The most militant miners consistently rejected this, saying things like: "scabs don't have the right to vote away another man's job"

This shows the value of spontaneous, autonomous action.

I just don't think this is a reason to throw out democracy as a method of collective decision making. Just that we should combine it with spontaneous action and autonomous action.

I was listening to a recording of Emma Goldman a few days ago and she made a very strong case against majority rule. Essentially she was saying that the majority will always make the wrong decision, that the majority concerns itself with conformity and being accepted others rather than uniqueness and creativity before doing the right thing. I have to say that my experience certainly bears this out.
One of the first threads I ever started on here was about voting as a decision making method and whilst not entirely convinced I’ve grudgingly accepted the idea of direct democracy as the best way for community decisions to be made. Having heard comrade Emma’s views I’m beginning to have my doubts. Many will say, as I have myself, that in the absence of an alternative that direct democracy/majority rule is the only practical method we can adopt for making collective decisions, but I’m starting to think that this is bullshit. It’s a dilemma for sure but how does that get to become the default position? How do we collectively make the decision on how we make collective decisions even?!!!
Maybe majority rule is the best thing for some decisions and not for others, perhaps positive decisions should be made by the majority but not negative ones? For instance, it seems to me that if the majority of the community decide to build a swimming pool then indeed, a swimming pool should be built(I’m not even certain about this tbh but let’s just go with it). But if the majority then decide that it’s not ok to use the pool after 5pm and that naked swimming is not allowed I would argue that these are tyrannical decisions and would be driven to make a point of going skinny dipping at 6pm!
I read somewhere that the very idea of democracy was not conducive with freedom, that there was no freedom in 70 people telling 30 others what to do. I can’t offer an alternative but that doesn’t mean that I should simply accept that democracy is the way to go. The burden of proof is on the proposers of such a method, not on others to disprove although I have to say, that while she spoke in very general terms, Goldman made a pretty good job of discrediting it.

Noah Fence

For instance, it seems to me that if the majority of the community decide to build a swimming pool then indeed, a swimming pool should be built(I’m not even certain about this tbh but let’s just go with it). But if the majority then decide that it’s not ok to use the pool after 5pm and that naked swimming is not allowed I would argue that these would be tyrannical decisions and would be driven to make a point of going skinny dipping at 6pm!

This is a good example of the kind of thing I'm worried about.

Maybe majority rule is the best thing for some decisions and not for others, perhaps positive decisions should be made by the majority but not negative ones?

I can think of cases where this wouldn't hold up. Some positive decisions could result in a tyranny of the majority. What if the swimming pool was built where a garden used to be, and a minority loved that garden? Also some negative decisions (restrictions on behavior) are important to agree on -- like "don't murder people" being an obvious example.

A little story. I saw a thread on the anarchism subreddit where someone made a post asking people what they thought of majority rule vs. consensus. They created a rudimentary poll in the form of two comments. One said:

Vote up if you prefer majority rules!

The other said:

Vote up if you prefer consensus!

Consensus by far got the majority of the votes. But it did not get a consensus. I couldn't help but laugh. By their own standards, both systems lost the vote.

Well LBC, your concerns are entirely legitimate. So tell me, considering the points that I’ve made and your own additional points, how do you justify your assertion that

majority rules direct democracy is the best way to make collective decisions.

???

Noah Fence #15
‘Many will say, as I have myself, that in the absence of an alternative that direct democracy/majority rule is the only practical method we can adopt for making collective decisions, but I’m starting to think that this is bullshit. It’s a dilemma for sure but how does that get to become the default position?’

What the future post-revolutionary world could look like is open to speculation. Rather than injecting theoretical ideals it may be more productive to ask, what can be said about the nature of human relationships? People living together requires a multiplicity of interactions. Each action provokes a reaction. I do not think this will change fundamentally. Let’s look at your ‘for instance’.

‘For instance, it seems to me that if the majority of the community decide to build a swimming pool then indeed, a swimming pool should be built (I’m not even certain about this tbh but let’s just go with it). But if the majority then decide that it’s not ok to use the pool after 5pm and that naked swimming is not allowed I would argue that these are tyrannical decisions and would be driven to make a point of going skinny dipping at 6pm!’

Now for the community to build a pool was a result of some perceived need, as was the ‘tyrannical decisions’ that followed its construction. Otherwise why would anyone bother? Resulting from this tyranny someone goes skinny dipping after 6pm. This could be thought of as an action based on principle. An act of individual protest.

So let’s imagine the result of this protest. Perhaps a reconsideration of the rules, or it’s seen as the act of an eccentric. If we live together we acknowledge our interdependence, or we would leave. There is no such thing as an act of individual protest if you live alone. The community brings the individual into being. There need be no un-reconcilable clash between a communist society and the individuals who comprise its entity. We are all minorities in some respects.

However anyone using the pool as a toilet needs shootin’.

Well yes Auld chap, you speak sooth. I guess I was addressing my points to those they propose direct democracy as being an essential part of an anarchist philosophy/ideology in the same way that we would state that no government is an essential. I know there are plenty of sthose and I’d like to hear their response to the questions raised.
Personally, in my 52 years I’ve never voted on anything even once. Whether political elections, referendums, X Factor or my personal favourite Strictly Come Dancing, I’ve made somewhat of a fetish of it. Even the groups I’ve been a member of have operated on a concensus basis.
Whilst concensus can be a brilliantly creative and extremely fair process I can’t see how it can work on a large scale, and even on a small scale it relies absolutely on the good faith, integrity and commitment to the process of those taking part. I’ve witnessed this bring great success but I’ve also seen the coercion of powerful personalities turn it into a farce. Still, I can’t see how a voting process can completely negate problems of that nature.

The other thing I’d like to know is what people think about Emma’s assertion that, by its very nature the majority is almost certain to fuck things up. It’s pretty controversial suggestion but when I consider my experience it’s very difficult for me not to concur.

Lucky Black Cat

I can think of cases where this wouldn't hold up. Some positive decisions could result in a tyranny of the majority. What if the swimming pool was built where a garden used to be, and a minority loved that garden?

Whether to build the pool, and where to build it, seem like two different decisions to me.

Either it's

"I want to go swimming, let's build a pool, OK then but where?"

"What should be done with this patch of land, why don't we turn it into a pool?".

If nothing is contentious, then those being a single decision doesn't really matter, but if it is, then it'd make sense to break down the decision making into steps.

Another point of contention - should Che be allowed to bring his dolphin there?

I'm not as read up on this as I'd like to be, and my vocab is completely lacking. I think I agree with Auld-Bod, though, especially about being careful saying what a communist society would look like in the smallest details.

I don't think a group/community need to consult the whole of society to decide something that really only affects them, and that really they only care about. If it's a technical decision, developing software for example, people without any knowledge don't really need an input there, unless you want non-functional, potentially dangerous software. (That probably goes without saying.)

I also don't believe all issues are so divisive that a disagreement would cause a break up of the people involved (the swimming pool scenario is a bit trivial). If the minority refuses to accept some decision, then I suppose they could just move somewhere else. I'd echo though that an "isolated existence" is not possible, so people really have to cooperate to some extent.

Noah Fence

The other thing I’d like to know is what people think about Emma’s assertion that, by its very nature the majority is almost certain to fuck things up. It’s pretty controversial suggestion but when I consider my experience it’s very difficult for me not to concur.

I think we need more context of where she said those things. I've seen people use those quotes to argue that she had a very elitist point of view, but likewise, provide very little context.

I mean, is she talking about some hypothetical, abstract 'representative democracy'? A post revolutionary society? If its the latter, I can only assume that those who express such views seem to think people will have the same level of education and values as they do today. That would be inconceivable, because if people remained unchanged, there would be no post revolutionary society to think of.

Anarchists are federalists; we believe people in a post revolutionary society, if it is to be successful, should be capable and pro active enough to settle before hand what types of decisions may need consensus and what types of decisions may need a simple majority. If a method is ineffective or leads to abuses, then people should make revisions and consistently re work things until it fit their needs. In this sense, nothing is set in stone.

I've seen critics of anarchism try to conflate federalism with some kind of democratism, and some anarchists themselves probably do that. But we need to correct them where they are wrong about this. Although this last point is probably for a different discussion.

zugzwang

I don't think a group/community need to consult the whole of society to decide something that really only affects them, and that really they only care about. If it's a technical decision, developing software for example, people without any knowledge don't really need an input there, unless you want non-functional, potentially dangerous software. (That probably goes without saying.)

This is basically pointing towards a discussion of federalism, which is perhaps not well understood. I've always wanted this site to have an introduction on it, but after attempting myself to write one, I'm not really sure it was worth it, so I gave up.

Agent, it would be difficult for me to find the quotes as they were in amongst a six and a half hour recording of her writing but certainly she was speaking in abstract terms about the nature of man and not just of man in a representative democracy. It was all very inspiring prose style stuff but I don’t remember her applying it to any particular real life event.
I use the word ‘man’ because that was the word she herself used constantly throughout the recording. That was a shame.

Lucky Black Cat

What if the swimming pool was built where a garden used to be, and a minority loved that garden?

And while we're on this hypothetical scenario, I can imagine the majority and minority might reach a compromise; they decide to creatively combine the garden and swimming pool.

And while we're on this hypothetical scenario, I can imagine the majority and minority might reach a compromise; they decide to creatively combine the garden and swimming pool.

Now you’re talking! Although ‘compromise’ doesn’t seem to do the idea justice. I’ll call it elevated creativity if it’s alright with you?
I know it’s a trivial example but I’m really excited at the prospect of this sort of creativity and the idea of a community designing it’s own infrastructure and surroundings.

Noah Fence #20
‘The other thing I’d like to know is what people think about Emma’s assertion that, by its very nature the majority is almost certain to fuck things up. It’s pretty controversial suggestion but when I consider my experience it’s very difficult for me not to concur.’

I read her article on the rearing of children, ‘The Child and its enemies’ (1906), she makes many valid comments regarding the attempts to mould children into ‘desirable objects’. However no one gets a free pass, as she thinks everybody gets it wrong.

Well, she gets it wrong too, when she asserts knowledge of a child’s ‘soul’ (let’s call it ‘nature’). This was understandable as our understanding of the human mind was so limited (and still is), that people believed all kinds of nonsense. Like the child is an empty vessel into which knowledge should be poured, or the myth of ‘human nature’ as a fixed entity, and we often get locked into a bleak vision of limited possibilities. Thankfully ideas including developmental psychology have come a long way since 1906.

Anthropology shows that human society comes in many forms both social and political. The society we live in and what is termed our nature, is a product of evolution and is therefore subject to change. Once freed from the need to secure the basics of life our ‘nature’ may develop in ways hard to imagine.

From this point of view, what it is to be human is a developmental process – it is not fixed or pre-determined. Who we are or become, is an extension of our individual genetic possibilities interacting with the society in which we find ourselves (a product of nature and nurture).

Yes, I also listened to the recording that Reddebrek posted last week. I thought it was pretty marvellous it that was as much for the wonderful language and rythym of her writing as it was for the content.
Another thing I really enjoy about her stuff is how she appears to be simultaneously full of scorn, derision and pessimism and a visionary optimism. I suppose the latter is due to her refusal to surrender at any price.

Noah Fence

Essentially she was saying that the majority will always make the wrong decision, that the majority concerns itself with conformity and being accepted others rather than uniqueness and creativity before doing the right thing.

I think Emma/Goldman had an admiration for Nietzsche. I can't speak much on the topic but maybe that's where such "majority dissing" remarks came from? I haven't read much from Emma (except for writings in anthologies and quotes here and there) and honestly don't even know what kind of anarchist she was. I'm assuming she was an anarchist communist like her partner Berkman.

Haha, indeed she was an admirer of Nietzsche!
What I surmise from the many hours of her writing I’ve just listened to is that she was a class struggle/communist type of anarchist but doesn’t actually fit terribly comfortably into that particular pigeonhole. Certainly she seems to have an individualist streak a mile wide.
Anyways Zugzwang, whether you agree with her or not, her writing is an absolute joy to behold so maybe commit a bit of time to it? You won’t regret it, I’m sure.

Noah Fence

Well LBC, your concerns are entirely legitimate. So tell me, considering the points that I’ve made and your own additional points, how do you justify your assertion that

majority rules direct democracy is the best way to make collective decisions.

???

Sorry I took so long to reply!

I don't know of any better alternative to majority rules direct democracy for collective decisions. It's possible there is a better alternative, so perhaps it's not fair for me to say this method is "the best." But I do believe it's the best of the known available options.

That said, direct democracy should be combined with strong support for individual freedom and local autonomy.

Also, I'm in favor of rebellion and resistance by the minority against decisions of the majority it finds unjust.

Noah Fence

Yea those remarks are obviously meant to get a chuckle, but I find them kind of crude. That is more a problem of my sensibilities then WildCat's writing, but...

I don't think I ever answered the op and I thought it would be nice to do so.

Democracy has three working definitions; a system of government where state officials are elected by the population, "rule by the people" (control of society and it's institutions by the masses of people themselves), and a method of decision making that includes the input of all parties involved. Anarchists oppose democracy in the first sense. Anarchists have always argued against representative government because it doesn't altar the basic function of the state, to carry out the domination of the exploited and oppressed masses by the ruling class. This is why if you look at how classical Anarchists such as Errico Malatesta and Emma Goldman talked about democracy you will see that they only ever talk about it in a negative light, they are referring to democracy in the sense of representative government.

Anarchists are for democracy in the latter two senses. Anarchists want a self-managed and self-organized society, one where institutions are created and maintained through the free cooperation of each individual. This is effectively "rule by the people", society controlled by the masses of people themselves. Self-management implies that each person governs their own activities and where they have to collaborate with others do so collectively with each person having an equal say. This is democracy in the last sense of decision making that includes the equal say of all involved.

The question of whether Anarchists are for majority rule is a bit stickier. Emma Goldman in her critique of women's suffrage in the United States argues that one person, one vote creates a situation where the majority effectively politically dominate the minority. This is because, according to Goldman, the majority vote will always trump the minority vote. There are a few counter-arguments that I think are pretty effective in favor of one person, one vote, though.

The majority is not one, constant entity with one person, one vote decision making. Whether you are in the majority, or the minority, depends on the way you vote. You could find yourself outnumbered on one decision, and then find another decision go your way. There is also room to discuss decisions and convince more people to vote the way you are, this means that consensus will happen when possible. Emma Goldman was also arguing against one person, one vote, in the form of representative government specifically, where the coercive state apparatus enforces the results of the vote on the whole population. An Anarchist society would be made up of free associations in which individuals are allowed to disassociate. Emma Goldman offers free association as an alternative to majority rule, but free associations can freely collectively adhere to one person, one vote and individuals can dissociate whenever they please.

Consensus is barely workable as a sustained method of decision making among small groups of friends. In large scale organizing consensus allows a minority of people to block any decisions they like and effectively mount a hostile take over. This is what happened when consensus was used in the Occupy Wall Street movement and Murray Bookchin observed this in movements he had been a part of much earlier than that. This means that to maintain self-management Anarchist "democracy" must be based on one person, one vote to make decisions quickly, effectively, and freely.

Noah Fence

I was listening to a recording of Emma Goldman a few days ago and she made a very strong case against majority rule. Essentially she was saying that the majority will always make the wrong decision, that the majority concerns itself with conformity and being accepted others rather than uniqueness and creativity before doing the right thing. I have to say that my experience certainly bears this out.

An easy way to deal with the conformity thing is to make all votes secret ballot.

As for worrying that the majority tends to get things wrong, I think this is down to human fallibility, and we wouldn't be more likely to reach the "right" decision with some other arrangement.

The fear of the majority being wrong has been used by monarchs, dictators, and the philosophers who support them, as a way of legitimizing their unilateral rule. Obviously this isn't your motive here, but "the stupid masses" argument has never really struck me as convincing, because no matter who you put in charge or how decisions are made, stupidity is bound to arise!

Finally, majority rules direct democracy is a way of achieving collective empowerment, and giving everyone shared control in decisions they're effected by. This is a good in itself, even though it can at times lead to bad outcomes.

A parallel to this is freedom. Freedom is a good in itself, though it can lead to bad outcomes... sometimes Very Bad outcomes. Think of all the people using their freedom to fuck up their lives! (Something I've been guilty of a few times!) But this is no reason to take away people's freedom.

The issue gets tricky, though, when people use their freedom to fuck up other people's lives. When they use their freedom to harm others. That's when we start to ask whether it's legitimate to limit this person's freedom. The solution used now is to put people in prison (though of course tons of prisoners didn't harm anyone). Prison abolitionists oppose putting even the worst offenders in prison, but pretty much everyone agrees that some sort of action needs to be taken to stop that harm.

Clearly, though, taking away everyone's freedom as a pre-emptive way of preventing anyone from causing harm to themselves or others, would be extremely unjust.

I see it that way with majority rules direct democracy. The collective empowerment it provides is a good in itself. We shouldn't turn away from it as a pre-emptive way of preventing harm. Especially cuz, no matter what method we use for collective decisions, whether majority rules or something else, the decisions made will no doubt sometimes be harmful. Because we're human and we're gonna fuck things up.

However, whenever a decision made through direct democracy is harmful, then action needs to be taken to stop it. Those who recognize that harm is being caused will have to mobilize. This is where resistance and rebellion by the minority becomes important.

You make a good case LBC. It falls way short of totally convincing me though. Possibly in current decision making, as part of a community or political group or whatever I could see DD being put to use but to make it part of the promotion of the anarchist ideology is something I would avoid absolutely.

Anybody that proposes DD as a way for collective decision making has a fundamental problem if they are interested in introducing maximum freedom into the process - anything other than consensus agreement to the process makes it tyrannical. Yet it seems that those who propose DD very often condemn consensus decision making on the grounds that it’s impractical(a fair point where large numbers of people are concerned) or that it leaves itself vulnerable to blocking by a minority, which is technically true although in general I think that a non coercive method of decision making encourages open mindedness and a genuine desire to to act with integrity and in the best interests of all rather than on a personal agenda, whilst the forcing of a decision on a minority is likely to create resentment in that minority, coupled with an unenthusiastic, uncooperative or even deliberately hindering approach to their part of the execution of that decision. It also shouldn’t be ignored that even a secret ballot can be vulnerable to manipulation by those with an agenda.

So if we don’t all agree to it, how can DD be considered fair and how can it be considered just to force somebody to act on a DD decision if they truly believe that harm will result or that their ethics will be compromised by their conformity? And how does the community deal with dissenters? I heard the argument that if individuals don’t agree with the majority in a community then they should leave that community and join another or go live somewhere on their own in self sufficiency. How does this fit with anarchist/communist principles?
This is a pretty simplified scenario, but what happens in our community Lucky, when a decision is made through DD in which me and you are the only two that see that decision as stupid or harmful or even immoral? As much as I’m sure it would be an absolute treat to skip off into the wilderness with you and live off of nut and berries and sleep under the starry blanket of heaven, Is it ok in your mind that we are forced to leave? Is it not our duty to challenge or even sabotage that decision? Is not our forced compliance or expulsion a disgusting act of authoritarianism?
Let’s face it, in our desire to destroy capitalism and the state we are in a tiny minority, should we never take any action that harms capital or the state until we have the majority in agreement with us? Majority rule sounds a little less attractive in these circumstances, right? But hey, when it comes to this, the majority are pretty stupid, so now it’s ok for us to ignore their wishes? Yep, in our very approach to creating this democratic ‘ideal’, we are absolutely undemocratic. I’ve never seen hypocrisy as a good foundation to build anything on.
So no, I have no alternative, but it seems to me that DD is way too full of holes to declare it acceptable as part of our overall ideology. In fact, I dispute the idea that an alternative is required - who made DD the default standard to which other ideas have to measure up? It’s like presenting a cube as the default means of rolling things around on as nobody has invented the wheel yet! No, the burden of proof is on those who propose DD, it’s nowhere near a strong enough proposition to be considered the accepted standard.
Finally, as I think I read in one of the links offered here, even in the most abstract way, regardless of the quality of its results, DD still fails in its principle objective, that is to give everyone affected by a decision, their influence in that decision - if you’re in the minority, your input has actually had no influence on that decision whatsoever.

Noah Fence #37

If I follow your logic, you do not agree with any form of collective decision making, as you may not get your own way. 'Individualism' is fine and dandy as long as no one else adopts the same attitude and sets about sabotaging your choices.

Direct democracy is not perfect, though ‘individualism’ promotes the kind of freedom capitalism loves – the survival of the fittest.

Auld-bod, your attempts to follow Noah Fence's logic trail have gone off the path. His trail actually leads not to individualism, but quite the opposite. He is not against collective decisions; that'd be wack and he knows it. He just wants to ensure that these collective decisions leave everyone satisfied.

So if you follow his logic trail correctly, it leads not to individualism but to the constructing of a Hive Mind, much like The Borg in Star Trek TNG. As we will all be of one mind, we will always agree on everything. Every decision will be both totally collective and totally satisfactory to all.

It's a bit too techno-utopian for my taste, due to the reliance on brain implants, but other than that it's not so bad. True communism, after all, is in the collective.

/piss-take response... ;) real response will come at some point.

Auld-bod

Noah Fence #37

If I follow your logic, you do not agree with any form of collective decision making, as you may not get your own way. 'Individualism' is fine and dandy as long as no one else adopts the same attitude and sets about sabotaging your choices.

Direct democracy is not perfect, though ‘individualism’ promotes the kind of freedom capitalism loves – the survival of the fittest.

You read me completely wrongly. I’ve made a number of points which possibly could be challenged but a broad brush ‘you just want your own way’ doesn’t meet the case at all and is as insulting as it is wrong.

Edit: On reflection, I probably took this a little too personally. Sorry AB, as you know, I’m rather a sensitive so and so atm.
My point, that I’ve presented a number of questions that should be properly challenged rather than written of as individualism and therefore not worth considering, still stands though.

And as I’ve mentioned earlier on, I like concensus decision making where it is practical. Contrary to popular belief concensus does not require 100% agreement on the decision at hand, it merely requires everyone to agree to a decision being made.
This was practiced for many years in a group I belonged to and more often than not involved me, ever the contrarian, to let decisions pass that I didn’t agree with and then act on that decision knowing that I had freely agreed to it rather than being corralled into it by the insistent absolutist many headed.

Noah #40/41

This still appears to me to be a recipe for, “Everybody doing their own thing”. It was hippie bollocks back in the day and still is.

EDIT
I certainly did not wish to insult you.

Auld-bod, your attempts to follow Noah Fence's logic trail have gone off the path. His trail actually leads not to individualism, but quite the opposite. He is not against collective decisions; that'd be wack and he knows it. He just wants to ensure that these collective decisions leave everyone satisfied.

Thank you LBC - Rem accu tetti gisti!

Auld Bod
I don’t know what you mean by “this”, as I haven’t actually proposed anything! I mention consensus in your response to your erroneous accusation that I don’t like any form of collective decision making. I have made it pretty clear that I don’t think it’s practical where a large number of people are involved. That said, my experience with consensus in a particular group was very extensive and was an incredibly thought provoking and creative way to make decisions, it insists upon the most thorough examination of the point at issue which can have enormous benefits. To dismiss it as “hippie bollocks” is once again failing to raise a criticism that even approaches adequacy. Anyways, I repeat that I am not proposing that method.
So to be clear, by no means am I saying that I have a fair and adequately functional method for making collective decisions, what I’m saying is that those that advocate direct democracy DON’T have one and that whether or not it is considered the default choice by many, it simply doesn’t live up to that status. That, to me, is a good starting point for a discussion that looks for new ideas, not a point to use ad hominems to bring it to an end.
My face always seems to develop a sudden magnetic attraction to the palm of my hand when the cry of ‘it's not perfect’ goes up. “Labour aren’t ideal but they’re the best option we’ve got”, “Liberal democracy isn’t without it’s problems but it’s the best of a bad bunch”, “direct democracy isn’t perfect but in the absence of an alternative...”
It’s seems to me that the similarity of the third, to the first and second statements is enough in itself to set alarm bells ringing but even putting that to one side, it’s my experience that these sort of statements indicate the end of constructive debate and in this particular case, the end of the type of progressive and creative thought needed for us to navigate our way to a decision making method that goes beyond the dull witted idea of 30%(or whatever) of those affected by a decision simply submitting to the will of the other 70%.
If some comrades feel that this isn’t worth debating then that’s fair enough, but I would suggest that if they don’t want to answer the perfectly legitimate objections raised then they shouldn’t swank about the place hollering “DIRECT DEMOCRACY WILL SAVE US” like the god botherer with the cheeseboard in the market place declaring the Good News to one and all! N.B. I would insert a winking emoji here but I haven’t the faintest idea how to do that!

Noah #43

We will have to disagree on this topic.

Your posts read to me as a set of propositions – on the multiple short comings of direct democracy – and a set of solutions these, including sabotage. Life is messy and people coalesce around ideas that are the best under the circumstances. The future will take care of itself.

No, I offer no solutions. Sabotage is not a solution, but it may be a reasonable reaction to an inhuman majority decision.
It’s frustrating beyond belief to have your position condemned without even an attempt being made to address the points you make. I’ve had that experience many times but honestly Auld Bod, you are the last person I would expect to have that experience with. I honestly don’t understand.

Prison abolitionists oppose putting even the worst offenders in prison, but pretty much everyone agrees that some sort of action needs to be taken to stop that harm.

I think a lot of the objectionable behavior (not all) of prisoners has its roots in capitalism, and if we were to do away with the latter then the objectionable behavior would go with it. If people have their needs satisfied then "economic crimes" like stealing and whatnot would cease. (And that's to say nothing about the strange/perverse notions of justice under capitalism.)

Noah it just feels as if you are looking for a solution or a discussion of a solution of something we cannot resolve, it is not possible to see into the new society in any detail. The nature of human existence will change once free of the struggle for the necessities of life. Some problems may remain the same though many will enter into history.

Maybe, in which case, if you see it as a waste of time, and particularly as you say, we can’t actually see what the future may make necessary, why not just keep out of it rather than make unsubstantiated condemnations of the points being made?
For me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with studying any and all aspects of possibilities for the future in the knowledge that some of what you study may become redundant when that future unfolds. In fact, without the willingness to do that, there would be very few conversations about politics to be had at all!

Possibly though, the more pertinent disagreement here is that you see this issue as peripheral at most whereas I see it as absolutely fundamental. If this is the case I can see how my persistence here may seem somewhat unnecessary and equally irritating.

Noah Fence

No, I offer no solutions. Sabotage is not a solution, but it may be a reasonable reaction to an inhuman majority decision.
It’s frustrating beyond belief to have your position condemned without even an attempt being made to address the points you make. I’ve had that experience many times but honestly Auld Bod, you are the last person I would expect to have that experience with. I honestly don’t understand.

imagine that in a meeting, thats why consensus can never work

Hello RG. I gotta repeat myself - I have made it absolutely clear that I am not advocating for consensus here. I’m just not! I don’t know what other way I can put it! I only mentioned it to refute AB’s assertion that I didn’t agree with collective decisions, or in other words, that I believe in individualism, which I quite categorically don’t!

imagine that in a meeting, thats why consensus can never work

Now this I can tell you from experience is something simply not true. If you say that it ‘may not work’, I would agree with you completely, if you said ‘it can never work on a large scale I’d be in agreement again, but when you say ‘it can never work I disagree absolutely - I have over a decade of experience in a community group which not only tells me it can work, it tells me it can work in the most beautiful, creative and productive way.
So now will anyone actually answer the questions I’ve posed as to the deep and various problems with DD or is it a case of entrenched beliefs trumping reason and debate?

Probably shouldn’t even engage with this insistence on talking about consensus as it seems to be a sort of metaphorical point change designed to run the train of this issue off into a dead end siding but with Auld Bod’s extraordinary assertion that it is “hippie bollocks” and RG’s assertion that it “can never work”, I’d be interested to know if these pretty damning conclusions are born of any actual experience, or are they based on second hand anecdotes or possibly just conjecture? Same question to anyone else reading this.
If I read RG’s opinion correctly, it carries the implication that it brings forth it's decisions without any real study of the subject on which a decision is being made, and by extension I’ll assume that he is suggesting that DD requires the study that is missing from consensus? This is only an assumption so sorry if I’m misrepresenting you RG. Anyways, having participated in two groups that used DD and two that used consensus(all groups of the same organisation) my experience is the polar opposite. I can explain further if anyone is interested.
However, my objections to DD are not based in this experience. They are simply what I have laid out in my other posts on this thread today, they are very clear and very simple and I wish they could be either answered or dropped instead of being swerved whilst simultaneously being condemned as somehow unworthy.

I think there is a bit of confusion here; you are insisting that 'consensus' works, and your argument for that is your personal experience with a group which used such method of decision making and which you found yourself "more often than not involved [you], ever the contrarian, to let decisions pass that [you] didn’t agree with and then act on that decision knowing that [you] had freely agreed to it rather than being corralled into it by the insistent absolutist many headed".

I don't think the problem we perceive in 'consensus' is that it never works. In the situations you found yourself in, it clearly did work, but it relied upon the generosity of the minority to go along with majority favored decisions. The problem is more so that is that it is elevated to a matter of principle by some anarchists. Those types often see in 'consensus' the most absolutist egalitarian power relation, and anything short of that undesirable. And what they mean by 'consensus' is one in which everyone agrees with the passed decision as a requirement. Decisions that are passed with a minority in disagreement are equated as an injustice.

If a group of people agree before hand to 'majority rule' as the method of decision making, then they are already coming into the situation with the expectation that all of them are not always going to be in agreement, and that they are willing to commit to carry out those decisions once made. But it's rather silly to hear from pro 'consensus' anarchists that those on the dissenting side of a passed decision are being oppressed.

Thanks for your input agent. I don’t know if you’ve read all my posts today but I have stated loud and clear that I am not advocating for consensus, I am not a concensus anarchist and I am not an individualist. In fact l absolutely support collective decision making as an essential in a communist society. The consensus stuff has only come up because others keep making statements about it that contradict my extensive experience. That experience has been good but for the last time I DO NOT THINK IT CAN WORK ON A LARGE SCALE.
The point of my posts is to challenge the idea that direct democracy should simply be accepted as a flawed but adequate solution. Maybe it is, but I have raised a number of clear objections that nobody has answered.
My further assertion is that this passive surrender to the entirely unsubstantiated idea that DD is an adequate way to make collective decisions restricts or even shuts down the pursuit of a more appropriate, more effective and altogether fairer solution.
I don’t see why this seems so fucking contentious, especially considering the hypocrisy of anarchists, a tiny minority, who propose using any means necessary to overthrow the entire system of societal organisation that has the backing of almost the entire population of the world, acting like you are being whiney little piss baby if you suggest that it may not be quite optimal for minority to have to comply with the majority’s preference based on an abitrary vote percentage.
Maybe you will tackle my objections Agent?

Noah Fence

Thanks for your input agent. I don’t know if you’ve read all my posts today but I have stated loud and clear that I am not advocating for consensus, I am not a concensus anarchist and I am not an individualist.

I didn't even assert that you were a 'consensus' anarchist, or that you were an individualist. I was trying to point out the perspectives that often informs these debates or discussions. And I'll add here that it is not only individualists who privilege 'consensus' as the principle decision making method, but also some of those who self identify as social anarchists, anarchist communists, etc. These types of anarchists are often online newbies who often have very little experience of doing actual organising.

Noah Fence

In fact l absolutely support collective decision making as an essential in a communist society.

I don't doubt that you support collective decision making as essential. And I'll also add here that I don't think being pro 'consensus' is being opposed to collective decision making.

Noah Fence

The consensus stuff has only come up because others keep making statements about it that contradict my extensive experience. That experience has been good but for the last time I DO NOT THINK IT CAN WORK ON A LARGE SCALE. The point of my posts is to challenge the idea that direct democracy should simply be accepted as a flawed but adequate solution. Maybe it is, but I have raised a number of clear objections that nobody has answered.
My further assertion is that this passive surrender to the entirely unsubstantiated idea that DD is an adequate way to make collective decisions restricts or even shuts down the pursuit of a more appropriate, more effective and altogether fairer solution.

And here you are asserting that some of the posters on this thread think 'direct democracy' is the solution. Solution to what exactly? And what would be the "more appropriate, more effective and altogether fairer solution"?

Noah Fence

...acting like anyone who suggests that it may not be quite optimal for minority to have to comply with the majority’s preference based on an abitrary vote percentage, are being whiney little piss babies!

I really think you are over reading into things others may have said on this thread.

To clarify this Agent, this portion of the conversation started with Lucky Black Cat stating that DD is the best option for collective decision making. That is the context for the objections I made and asked for a response to. Nobody has actually tackled any of the objections I have made today despite them being very clearly laid out in a single post and elaborated on in another. Obviously nobody is obliged to but the mind boggles somewhat at people challenging me on something I’ve repeatedly said I don’t think can work on a large scale yet not challenging my objections to the actual point of the whole discussion, namely direct democracy and majority rule.
I laid out my position on a few things in reply to you out of the frustration created by the earlier swerving of my objections and related questions. This was inappropriate and didn’t really make sense in the context of your post. Sorry about that.

And here you are asserting that some of the posters on this thread think 'direct democracy' is the solution. Solution to what exactly? And what would be the "more appropriate, more effective and altogether fairer solution"?

Yes, as I said above, they are suggesting that DD is the main solution for collective decision making. I am asking them to substantiate that and raising objections that I believe make it far from a given that DD is really a decent option at all and that certainly it shouldn’t be thought of as the default option against which all other options should be measured. People then made responses that focused on things other things and almost totally ignored my objections/questions.
As for the alternative, well that’s one of my main points, it seems to be a debate that is pretty much drained of energy buy the passive acceptance that DD is the imperfect but acceptable way to make decisions on a large and small scale, the best of a bad job. I don’t know the answer to that question, that’s why I want to talk about it and if we gonna talk about it then the need for it is a good place to start, hence me raising objections to the decision making mechanism most commonly advocated and accepted by anarchists.
I don’t think I need to come up with an alternative to be justified in pointing out some major flaws and conflicts with principles that I believe DD has but I wonder if the swerving of the issue rather than just answering to the objections indicates that the questions themselves are a pretty tricky proposition?

...acting like anyone who suggests that it may not be quite optimal for minority to have to comply with the majority’s preference based on an abitrary vote percentage, are being whiney little piss babies!

This was an intentionally bombastic comment born of the suggestion that those who object to DD don’t like any form of collective decision making and just want to get their own way. So a rather OTT reaction I’ll admit but a reaction justified by a pretty outrageous accusation.

Noah Fence,

If you can tell by my own posts on this thread, I think any decent anarchist - be they individualist, social, communist, etc. - should aim to be rather constructive when it comes to discussing these things, whether online or in offline circumstances where it really matters. I think that framing the question as choosing between 'direct' versus 'consensus' democracy, or somewhere in between is rather unhelpful. Auld-bod wrote earlier that it "feels as if you are looking for a solution or a discussion of a solution of something we cannot resolve"; I'll go even further than that and say (and please don't take this the wrong way) that it seems you believe that the solution to a potential injustice lies in another method of making decisions. How is conceiving this solution you seek for a scenario far off into a future post capitalist society is gonna help us in the here and now?

Anarchists such as ourselves need to encourage others to be thoughtful when it comes to discussing and designing decision making and accountability processes, and to avoid having blind faith in any method. I think the way you are looking at this topic is kinda misguided.

Noah Fence

Hello RG. I gotta repeat myself - I have made it absolutely clear that I am not advocating for consensus here. I’m just not! I don’t know what other way I can put it! I only mentioned it to refute AB’s assertion that I didn’t agree with collective decisions, or in other words, that I believe in individualism, which I quite categorically don’t!

yet you say you are fine with consensus and speak of it favourably while decrying voting and saying you would never use voting in an anarchist context

Noah Fence

imagine that in a meeting, thats why consensus can never work

Now this I can tell you from experience is something simply not true. If you say that it ‘may not work’, I would agree with you completely, if you said ‘it can never work on a large scale I’d be in agreement again, but when you say ‘it can never work I disagree absolutely - I have over a decade of experience in a community group which not only tells me it can work, it tells me it can work in the most beautiful, creative and productive way.

so you quote EG claiming that the majority will always make the wrong decision, and think thats a legitimate point, but i say consensus cant work based on my experience of overly long meetings, point less blocks, pointless arguments getting drawn out forever and decisions not being made because of running out of time and thats not a legitimate point because a couple of times you didn't block something?

Noah Fence

So now will anyone actually answer the questions I’ve posed as to the deep and various problems with DD or is it a case of entrenched beliefs trumping reason and debate?

i dont believe you have raise legitimate points against voting on decisions. there is no decision making process that will always produce the correct decision, but consensus is clearly more prone to being manipulated and sabotaged than voting.

if someone's got a better way of deciding things let them present it, other wise we should go with the best, or least bad that we have

I said that I have had consistently good experiences with small scale concensus during a period over a decade. I said I don’t believe it can work on a large scale so I am not advocating in such circumstances. This contains no contradiction.
You didn’t say any of those things, you just said it can never work. This is factually wrong because I’ve seen it work extremely well, every two weeks for over ten years. I don’t doubt that you had shit experiences but you didn’t mention them previously. Presumably they were created by people not acting in good faith?

If I haven’t raised any legitimate points it should be a piece of piss to discredit them, right? So go ahead, quick! I’ve been fucking waiting long enough! Christ, this could have been done with this morning but instead I’ve had to repeat myself a thousand fucking times whilst other duck and dive and swerve.
Seriously, why not just address the points, demonstrate why I’m full of shit and send me off to the corner with a dunces hat on my head???!!!

if someone's got a better way of deciding things let them present it, other wise we should go with the best, or least bad that we have

This is precisely what I was talking about. In no other area of life do we accept something that we all agree is far from perfect and never try to move on. Progression is achieved precisely by us looking at the problems with a system, a piece of technology, a lack of resource, or whatever and then collectively looking for ways to improve it or replace it. Our political ideas and strategies should not be exempt from this natural process. Surely some of you agree with this statement? Maybe we should take a vote...

First of all if the community has decided on a particular rule, then some childish impulse to do the opposite as some act against authority is ridiculous. Just because people are taking decisions does not mean that they are arbitrary, unfair and aimed at stopping you from doing what you want. That is how decisions are made in a capitalist society where you have no stake in most decisions and the people who make them couldn't care less about you.

I've no idea why the pool would close at 5, but if the community agreed on it then just live with it, it's not like you have to wait until the end of the work day to go for a swim. If you assume that decisions will be arbitrary and unfair then you are stuck in the mindset of our present society. Trust has been mentioned before, if we don't trust each other then there is no possibility of communism. Maybe the pool closes at 5 because all the naked rebels never volunteer for lifeguard duty? It seems like you have picked this example deliberately so you can paint this authoritarian fun police view of communism. Maybe the pool closes at 5 because it wouldn't be dangerous to use a cold pool in the dark and in this location energy is needed for other things? Who knows? You didn't give us a reason so it is useless as an example because that turns it into an unjustified exercise of power,and the whole point of a communist society is to not have those.

Noah Fence

So if we don’t all agree to it, how can DD be considered fair and how can it be considered just to force somebody to act on a DD decision if they truly believe that harm will result or that their ethics will be compromised by their conformity?

This is probably unlikely to happen once we are not facing an economic imperative to screw people over. As has been said before, it requires the majority to not force through decisions that can harm people and the minority to not throw their toys out of the plan, but on a more fundamental level, all situations are discussed exhaustively beforehand so you won't get given two bad choices. "Well I have to vote for Labour because they're basically the same as the Tories but are occasionally a little more restrained." That is not the way it works, democracy is the community trying to collectively decide what to do. In the same way as a discussion on a forum is not supposed to be about winning, but about trying, as a group, to understand an issue better. A vote is more a way of deciding whether the discussion has been succesful. If you can handle putting objections aside in a consensus system then this is not a big step. Do you just need the 'power' of allowing things to go through even though you oppose them?

And how does the community deal with dissenters? I heard the argument that if individuals don’t agree with the majority in a community then they should leave that community and join another or go live somewhere on their own in self sufficiency. How does this fit with anarchist/communist principles?

I would lock you and No in a tin shack in the desert and not let either of you out until you had a civil discussion and reached a conclusion :)
The community would try to avoid having dissenters by examining the issues together and trying to understand why people disagreed and seeing if there was something to do about it. It wouldn't be a question of punishing people or forcing them out because they though the pool should close an hour earlier. Let's say we were dealing with a very serious issue, for example someone who had been drink driving several times and then killed someone. I think it would be acceptable for the community to bar this person from using vehicles, and I wouldn't want to live in a community that allowed someone to drive drunk and put people in danger. If we could not agree on this issue then I would consider leaving.

This is a pretty simplified scenario, but what happens in our community Lucky, when a decision is made through DD in which me and you are the only two that see that decision as stupid or harmful or even immoral? As much as I’m sure it would be an absolute treat to skip off into the wilderness with you and live off of nut and berries and sleep under the starry blanket of heaven, Is it ok in your mind that we are forced to leave? Is it not our duty to challenge or even sabotage that decision? Is not our forced compliance or expulsion a disgusting act of authoritarianism?

Are you skipping off or expelled? There is a big difference.One is a punitive measure, the other could be an act of conscience or throwing your toys out of the pram. As a communist it is your duty to challenge an idea that you think is harmful or immoral and you do so throughout the decision-making process. It isn't a question of showing up for a vote and then leaving if you lose, this isn't Brexit. (Althoughh weirdly enough it seems to be the scum responsble for Brexit who want to keep their options open as regards leaving)

Let’s face it, in our desire to destroy capitalism and the state we are in a tiny minority, should we never take any action that harms capital or the state until we have the majority in agreement with us? Majority rule sounds a little less attractive in these circumstances, right? But hey, when it comes to this, the majority are pretty stupid, so now it’s ok for us to ignore their wishes? Yep, in our very approach to creating this democratic ‘ideal’, we are absolutely undemocratic. I’ve never seen hypocrisy as a good foundation to build anything on.

You are having your cake and eating it. I don't think anyone here would want to 'impose' communism, because it wouldn't work. People need to act in good faith, accoridng to communist principles for a communist society to work.So we are a minority that seeks to influence people, I don't plan to win any elections, but I don't think a revolution comes unless a large amount of the population believes in communism and a larger amount is willing to try it out.
A minority rule is, by definition, uncommunist. You cannot let a minority make the decisions, now they might have a big effect on them. For example if we were deciding how much cotton to produce for gauze for hopsital supplies, I would listen to the comrades running the hospital rather than ones who don't. And we would all try to listen to the best advice as part of our responsibility to each other as communists. It's not someone voting for Trump because they are scared Clinton will take away their right to own guns, or someone being stuck voting for Clinton in the hope that abortion will remain legal.

So no, I have no alternative, but it seems to me that DD is way too full of holes to declare it acceptable as part of our overall ideology. In fact, I dispute the idea that an alternative is required - who made DD the default standard to which other ideas have to measure up? It’s like presenting a cube as the default means of rolling things around on as nobody has invented the wheel yet! No, the burden of proof is on those who propose DD, it’s nowhere near a strong enough proposition to be considered the accepted standard.

As you have proposed absolutely nothing else, I think what you are saying is other people should think up a new system for you. Abdication of your role as a communist. Also tyranny of the minority to demand action even though the others on here do not agree with you. Trying to force them to answer questions that they don't want to etc. I think you are fundamentally wrong here. The Aztecs never invented the wheel, as far as I remember it wouldn't have helped too much due to geography and the nature of their society, but this isn't about using squares instead. As far as I can say communist thinking is saying "'the best way we can think of for now is using llamas to carry things, but we will always be looking for a better method and as such we will be adapting and improving this message and will replace it if necessary." You seem to be saying, "let's not move anything because there is something better than llamas but I don't know what it is."

Finally, as I think I read in one of the links offered here, even in the most abstract way, regardless of the quality of its results, DD still fails in its principle objective, that is to give everyone affected by a decision, their influence in that decision - if you’re in the minority, your input has actually had no influence on that decision whatsoever.

This is a chhildish, winner-takes-all way to look at a decision. You are saying that if you don't "win" then you have no influence. Your input has a decision in the shaping of everything, not whether 'your' side wins. So as a communist you will be making suggestions about how to improve and maintain society, so you will be participating in the discussion about what are the actual questions facing the community, what are possible actions to take, how could they be done, what are the effects and so on. So long before we vote on anything everyone will have a huge amount of involvement, because we will be framing the wuestions which will lead to looking at answers which will lead to trying to determine which of them is the most suitable.

This is why you are accused of individualism, because you seem to view communism as a loss of your personal power to do things. You seem much more interested in defending this 'individual' power than in participating in the community. So you are much like the guy complaining about not having a right to do something under communism when the whole point of communism is the only limit is our respect for each other.

Jeff, thank you for your long and thoughtful response. On first reading I can see you have made some good points for me to consider and also that I think you have misinterpreted some of what I’m saying, if not that, you’ve certainly misunderstood my motivations for this discussion. If I have expressed myself poorly then my bad, but the motivation is to look for a better way to make decisions rather than just accept one that it seems everyone agrees falls far short of being ideal. I dare say an ideal solution will be extremely elusive but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, surely? Anyways, Lucky Black Cat at least has divined what motivates me pretty well...

Auld-bod, your attempts to follow Noah Fence's logic trail have gone off the path. His trail actually leads not to individualism, but quite the opposite. He is not against collective decisions; that'd be wack and he knows it. He just wants to ensure that these collective decisions leave everyone satisfied.

I will take a closer look at your post in the morning but thanks again for actually engaging with me even if your conclusion is that I’m talking shit!

Agent of the International

Noah Fence,

If you can tell by my own posts on this thread, I think any decent anarchist - be they individualist, social, communist, etc. - should aim to be rather constructive when it comes to discussing these things, whether online or in offline circumstances where it really matters. I think that framing the question as choosing between 'direct' versus 'consensus' democracy, or somewhere in between is rather unhelpful. Auld-bod wrote earlier that it "feels as if you are looking for a solution or a discussion of a solution of something we cannot resolve"; I'll go even further than that and say (and please don't take this the wrong way) that it seems you believe that the solution to a potential injustice lies in another method of making decisions. How is conceiving this solution you seek for a scenario far off into a future post capitalist society is gonna help us in the here and now?

Anarchists such as ourselves need to encourage others to be thoughtful when it comes to discussing and designing decision making and accountability processes, and to avoid having blind faith in any method. I think the way you are looking at this topic is kinda misguided.

I somehow completely missed this post. You’re right, I have become rather jagged in my responses as I was getting more and more frustrated with nobody simply answering some direct questions in a direct way. Shouldn’t do it and I’ll try to reign it in.
I believe that you and Jeff have engaged in a genuine manner and that AB and RG have been at least a little evasive. That’s not to pick a fight with them, it’s just my honest assessment of the situation. All that said, I still haven’t seen many direct answers to direct questions which I’m still frustrated by.
This is an important issue for me for reasons you can probably surmise considering our recent PM conversation, hence my high level of frustration and anxiety around it. Hopefully this will also answer your point about why would I be so interested in something we can’t resolve? That’s fair enough if nobody is advocating DD for the future either, but if they are... Do you get me now?
Thanks again for your input.

jef costello made a pretty good post noah. I'm curious to know if you think it addresses your concerns or not.

Agent of the International

jef costello made a pretty good post noah. I'm curious to know if you think it addresses your concerns or not.

I agree it was a good post. I’ll try to address it all but I don’t think I’ll ever get it done if I try to use the quote facility - I don’t have a computer to work with, only a phone, so I’ll just copy and paste the whole thing and insert my comments.
It’s a big job so it probably won’t appear for a while, possibly for a day or two.

Ok then, firstly I have to say that most of my objections were perfectly clear and could have been challenged in a straightforward way. I think that Jef’s excellent post exemplifies this.
What I can see that I did not make clear at all, in fact I don’t think I even hinted at it, is that my ideal outcome for this discussion would be for me to be convinced that DD is a sufficiently reliable procedure for procuring good decisions in a fair and equal way.
I won’t go into details but that result would remove a big problem from my life, a real life, here and now problem.
The other outcome I hoped for was a discussion on other potential ways to make collective decisions and I was appealing to others more experienced and quite possibly smarter than myself to suggest them or talk about other things that have been tried in the past as well as examples of DD in action. FTR, my meagre experience of it has been shit.
I put my hands up though and admit I conveyed my desires poorly at best. I really thought that straight answers to my objections would instigate a wide ranging discussion. Maybe they would but I think I framed it all very poorly so my bad.
My conclusion, particularly considering Jef’s points is that whilst I’m not yet convinced entirely, I have moved a very long way in that direction, and I do mean a very long way. I had not completely dismissed DD but I was very very sceptical about it. I’m feeling far more positive about it now and will continue to study all this.
Here’s my response to Jef but before that, dare I ask others to answer some of my original questions?

“First of all if the community has decided on a particular rule, then some childish impulse to do the opposite as some act against authority is ridiculous. Just because people are taking decisions does not mean that they are arbitrary, unfair and aimed at stopping you from doing what you want. That is how decisions are made in a capitalist society where you have no stake in most decisions and the people who make them couldn't care less about you.”

Ok, the last thing on my mind is to be rebelling against authority for the sake of it. I believe in communism and would not feel any desire at all to challenge the status quo as a general principle. In fact, I would consider myself part of it. But I do believe it’s entirely possible for a majority decision to be made that my ethics couldn’t possibly countenance. I can think of one thing in particular but I’m loathe to bring it up as it will undoubtedly create a sidetrack. So suffice to say, if a majority decision is made that is directly harmful then to challenge or even sabotage it may be something to consider.
Of course, I say ‘I’ and ‘my’ but obviously the chances are it would be a considerable number of people.

I never meant to imply that the decisions themselves would be made arbitrarily(although that’s not impossible), but more that the figures involved, the quorum and the percentages can’t help but be arbitrary to some degree.

My initial example was perhaps a bad choice but I thought it was clear that it was tongue in cheek and just there as an instrument to use for examining the issue...

“I've no idea why the pool would close at 5, but if the community agreed on it then just live with it, it's not like you have to wait until the end of the work day to go for a swim. If you assume that decisions will be arbitrary and unfair then you are stuck in the mindset of our present society. Trust has been mentioned before, if we don't trust each other then there is no possibility of communism. Maybe the pool closes at 5 because all the naked rebels never volunteer for lifeguard duty? It seems like you have picked this example deliberately so you can paint this authoritarian fun police view of communism. Maybe the pool closes at 5 because it wouldn't be dangerous to use a cold pool in the dark and in this location energy is needed for other things? Who knows? You didn't give us a reason so it is useless as an example because that turns it into an unjustified exercise of power,and the whole point of a communist society is to not have those.”

But yes, it didn’t really work. If I did use it as a cheap shot it certainly wasn’t consciously but considering what you said I agree it’s a bit wanky.

“Noah Fence wrote:
So if we don’t all agree to it, how can DD be considered fair and how can it be considered just to force somebody to act on a DD decision if they truly believe that harm will result or that their ethics will be compromised by their conformity?
This is probably unlikely to happen once we are not facing an economic imperative to screw people over. As has been said before, it requires the majority to not force through decisions that can harm people and the minority to not throw their toys out of the plan, but on a more fundamental level, all situations are discussed exhaustively beforehand so you won't get given two bad choices. "Well I have to vote for Labour because they're basically the same as the Tories but are occasionally a little more restrained." That is not the way it works, democracy is the community trying to collectively decide what to do. In the same way as a discussion on a forum is not supposed to be about winning, but about trying, as a group, to understand an issue better. A vote is more a way of deciding whether the discussion has been succesful. If you can handle putting objections aside in a consensus system then this is not a big step. Do you just need the 'power' of allowing things to go through even though you oppose them?”

I stick with my position here but to be clear I’m not saying that I couldn’t surrender to a community decision I disagree with but that sometimes my values may necessitate a challenge.
Your last sentence raises an excellent point and I could see how you reach that conclusion. The answer for me is an emphatic NO, for others though, who can say???

“Quote:
And how does the community deal with dissenters? I heard the argument that if individuals don’t agree with the majority in a community then they should leave that community and join another or go live somewhere on their own in self sufficiency. How does this fit with anarchist/communist principles?
I would lock you and No in a tin shack in the desert and not let either of you out until you had a civil discussion and reached a conclusion smile
The community would try to avoid having dissenters by examining the issues together and trying to understand why people disagreed and seeing if there was something to do about it. It wouldn't be a question of punishing people or forcing them out because they though the pool should close an hour earlier. Let's say we were dealing with a very serious issue, for example someone who had been drink driving several times and then killed someone. I think it would be acceptable for the community to bar this person from using vehicles, and I wouldn't want to live in a community that allowed someone to drive drunk and put people in danger. If we could not agree on this issue then I would consider leaving.”

I actually loled at the first sentence!
Basically, whilst I think your description is a little utopian, I still think it’s a good base position to start from, so you’ve convinced me enough to concede the point.

“Quote:
This is a pretty simplified scenario, but what happens in our community Lucky, when a decision is made through DD in which me and you are the only two that see that decision as stupid or harmful or even immoral? As much as I’m sure it would be an absolute treat to skip off into the wilderness with you and live off of nut and berries and sleep under the starry blanket of heaven, Is it ok in your mind that we are forced to leave? Is it not our duty to challenge or even sabotage that decision? Is not our forced compliance or expulsion a disgusting act of authoritarianism?
Are you skipping off or expelled? There is a big difference.One is a punitive measure, the other could be an act of conscience or throwing your toys out of the pram. As a communist it is your duty to challenge an idea that you think is harmful or immoral and you do so throughout the decision-making process. It isn't a question of showing up for a vote and then leaving if you lose, this isn't Brexit. (Althoughh weirdly enough it seems to be the scum responsble for Brexit who want to keep their options open as regards leaving)”

I meant expelled but skipping as an act of defiance and with delight at the prospect of hanging out in the wilderness with a lucky black cat!
But yes, as a general point I think you’re right but I guess I’ve taken a deliberately pessimistic view as it’s unrealistic to think it’s a given that every decision will be examined with an open mind and an egalitarian attitude. I’ve seen many times that a majority view can seem to negate the need to listen to a minority especially if it seems to that majority that they may be deprived of some privilege or other form of comfort.

“Quote:
Let’s face it, in our desire to destroy capitalism and the state we are in a tiny minority, should we never take any action that harms capital or the state until we have the majority in agreement with us? Majority rule sounds a little less attractive in these circumstances, right? But hey, when it comes to this, the majority are pretty stupid, so now it’s ok for us to ignore their wishes? Yep, in our very approach to creating this democratic ‘ideal’, we are absolutely undemocratic. I’ve never seen hypocrisy as a good foundation to build anything on.
You are having your cake and eating it. I don't think anyone here would want to 'impose' communism, because it wouldn't work. People need to act in good faith, accoridng to communist principles for a communist society to work.So we are a minority that seeks to influence people, I don't plan to win any elections, but I don't think a revolution comes unless a large amount of the population believes in communism and a larger amount is willing to try it out.
A minority rule is, by definition, uncommunist. You cannot let a minority make the decisions, now they might have a big effect on them. For example if we were deciding how much cotton to produce for gauze for hopsital supplies, I would listen to the comrades running the hospital rather than ones who don't. And we would all try to listen to the best advice as part of our responsibility to each other as communists. It's not someone voting for Trump because they are scared Clinton will take away their right to own guns, or someone being stuck voting for Clinton in the hope that abortion will remain legal.”

I don’t see the point of cake if you can’t eat it!
You’re right though, a shitty ill thought through statement. My only excuse, poor though it is, is that I was almost insane with frustration at my questions not being answered!

“Quote:
So no, I have no alternative, but it seems to me that DD is way too full of holes to declare it acceptable as part of our overall ideology. In fact, I dispute the idea that an alternative is required - who made DD the default standard to which other ideas have to measure up? It’s like presenting a cube as the default means of rolling things around on as nobody has invented the wheel yet! No, the burden of proof is on those who propose DD, it’s nowhere near a strong enough proposition to be considered the accepted standard.
As you have proposed absolutely nothing else, I think what you are saying is other people should think up a new system for you. Abdication of your role as a communist. Also tyranny of the minority to demand action even though the others on here do not agree with you. Trying to force them to answer questions that they don't want to etc. I think you are fundamentally wrong here. The Aztecs never invented the wheel, as far as I remember it wouldn't have helped too much due to geography and the nature of their society, but this isn't about using squares instead. As far as I can say communist thinking is saying "'the best way we can think of for now is using llamas to carry things, but we will always be looking for a better method and as such we will be adapting and improving this message and will replace it if necessary." You seem to be saying, "let's not move anything because there is something better than llamas but I don't know what it is."”

No, I’m not saying that at all, I’m saying others should think up a new system WITH me, or with whoever. My criticisms were not supposed to condemn DD out of hand, but to show that it has a lot of potential flaws so we should be looking for a better way, or at least a way to make DD as functional as possible so that it can create the best quality results. Which actually syncs perfectly with your llama scenario. We are two minds with but a single thought comrade!

“Quote:
Finally, as I think I read in one of the links offered here, even in the most abstract way, regardless of the quality of its results, DD still fails in its principle objective, that is to give everyone affected by a decision, their influence in that decision - if you’re in the minority, your input has actually had no influence on that decision whatsoever.
This is a chhildish, winner-takes-all way to look at a decision. You are saying that if you don't "win" then you have no influence. Your input has a decision in the shaping of everything, not whether 'your' side wins. So as a communist you will be making suggestions about how to improve and maintain society, so you will be participating in the discussion about what are the actual questions facing the community, what are possible actions to take, how could they be done, what are the effects and so on. So long before we vote on anything everyone will have a huge amount of involvement, because we will be framing the wuestions which will lead to looking at answers which will lead to trying to determine which of them is the most suitable.”

Christ, I really fucked that one up! I meant it at the time but your explanation pretty much trashes it although once again, I’d say you’re a little optimistic if you think that the picture I paint could never happen.
I agree though, and one can always find possible negatives to anything so you have me on side here Jef.

“This is why you are accused of individualism, because you seem to view communism as a loss of your personal power to do things. You seem much more interested in defending this 'individual' power than in participating in the community. So you are much like the guy complaining about not having a right to do something under communism when the whole point of communism is the only limit is our respect for each other.”

No, I don’t view communism as a block to my individual freedom so if I’ve really(?) represented my feelings as that then I screwed up.
The truth is that I think true freedom and true individuality can only materialise and be expressed through the community experience. So your conclusion of my feelings about communism are simply wrong though I concede that I possibly haven’t made things very clear.
Oh, and your last sentence is very beautiful.