Anarchism and Democracy

As I have argued before, democracy in the sense of majoritarianism or a political system of phony oligarchal representation inherently violates liberty. I have also tried to emphasize that all states are inherently exclusive and out of the control of "the people" at large by the very nature of such an institution.

But there is also a third and more pure or original sense of democracy that is in fact the very embodyment of anarchism. The concept of participatory democracy is quite anarchistic in that it emphasizes unanimous consent and leaves the individual the option to opt out of associations or organizations. Instead of delegating power to another person to act within an oligarchy that effects everyone else, as is the case in representative democracy, participatory democracy involves individual representation of themselves based on much more direct means that gives the individual an actual voice in matters that effect them.

If democracy is understood as meaning control by "the people", then what can possibly be more democratic than a society in which the function of governance is literally absorbed by "the people" as a whole, I.E. a self-governing society? What is anarchism but the most consistant realization of this principle, in which the individual may choose their own destiny through freedom of association? And what is a free market but a manifestation of participatory democracy in people's economic decisions, associations and organizations?

The moment that an exclusive oligarchal apparatus of control is imposed onto any segment of "the people", the fundamental principle of democracy is violated. The only way for democracy to meaningfully come to fruition is in the absence of rulers, when people are given the option to opt out of associations or organizations and to persue their preferences without having a system imposed on them from above. Instead of a single individual, family or aristocracy ruling over an entire society, each individual in the society must be treated as a sovereign or self-ruler.

In a genuine anarchic or market democracy, the individual "votes" with their choice of associations and voluntary economic interactions. Their "vote" does not coercively determine who anyone else will associate with, what organization(s) they will join or what goods and services that they will buy or sell. It is the individual's explicit consent that determines these things for themselves. If they are displeased with a given association or organization, they may exit the relationship as they please and persue alternatives.

It is strictly in this sense that I feel safe in proclaiming that "democracy is liberty".

Published Sun, May 11 2008 1:04 AM by Brainpolice
Filed under: , , , , ,

Comments

# Cork2 said on 11 May, 2008 11:50 AM

Most anarcho-communist however do not support a participatory democracy. They want everyone to collectively to be dependent on each other.

What if anarcho-communist invented a new weapon as deadly as the atomic weapon? What if they invented some new biotechnology that can threaten the upper class? What if they use these technologies to conquer the world, and not peacefully compete with anarcho-capitalists? They MUST obey the non-aggression axiom to prevent them from abusing their technologies.

# Nitroadict said on 11 May, 2008 08:58 PM

PDA's & retaliatory action towards the said anarcho-communists (which, in your scenario, sound like the initiators of coercion, thereby allowing all others the right to defend themselves), would solve this problem before it gets out of hand, methinks.  

how would said anarcho-communists acquire the materials & labor force for such an agenda, as well?  Breed themselves impressionable children to brainwash & grow over there years to take over their work?  Sounds awfully inefficient, as most likely they would probably want the ability of individuals working for them, and probably reluctantly require to use the market, and if such an agenda were known or even rumored about, I highly doubt business would be booming for them.  

Even if they tried circumventing the market, and tried stealing all their materials, they could easily be caught red-handed attempting such, preventing the growth of such an alarmist situation.  At least, those are a few ways I can see it not happening, there is more, methinks.

BP could probably answer your question better than I.