this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
13 points (81.0% liked)

Leftism

2443 readers
2 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Solarpunk memes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I thought this was interesting, it's an overview of how an anarchist revolution would work without entrenching authoritarianism or vanguard parties.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (14 children)

Anarchists' inability to imagine decision-making mechanisms beyond direct democracy/consensus for organizations is a missed opportunity. There is a spectrum of mechanisms in-between direct democracy and uncoordinated direct action. An example is some variant of quadratic funding, which could allocate resources towards mutual aid. It is an egalitarian mechanism that ensures that organizations with broad-based support receive more resources than those supported by resourced concentrated groups

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (12 children)

I'm an anarchosyndicalist so my perspective might be a bit skewed, but anarchism isn't strictly opposed to representation. There's a heavy preference to consensus, but consensus is also objectively the most democratic method available to people. Direct action doesn't mean that there aren't organizers either, in fact it's basically necessary. Organizers aren't "dear leader" however, they just do the brunt of planning to help focus the action people will be taking part in. Preparation for the revolution would require funding, but voting with dollars in any capacity still means that those without dollars have no votes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

It is good that anarchists are open to delegation. They seem to be unable to imagine delegation to another egalitarian decision-making procedure. If this other decision-making procedure isn't serving the organization's members, it should be replaced.

A federation of worker coops where the means of production is collectivized across the federation would need some mechanism to allocate revenue from the means of production to mutual aid projects. Consensus would not be effective in this case

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Anarchists seek to replace the state with systems that are constructed through full participation, not to reproduce the state with a different one that may seem to some as more appealing.

Would you mind explaining your understanding over the incompatibility between consensus and mutual aid, and what you imagine may be neither coercive or consensual?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)