This is an archive of discussions that arose after issue #60 - Democracy

Makhno

Having just finished M. DuPont's essay on democracy, I find it to be a fairly decent critique of actually-existing democratic structures and practices in our contemporary world, but seriously lacking any analysis of the concept of democracy as such. If it is true that democracy means little in a society dominated by capitalistic modes of production and property ownership, then what about a hypothetical, egalitarian and non-hierarchical revolutionary society - or what about democracy within the limited current context of affinity groups or revolutionary organizations? Would the concept of "direct" or "participatory" democracy work any better there?

There are two articles I have posted on the Web within the last year that deal with precisely these questions, and I think they would add much to this discussion:

(1) Reinventing Hierarchy, by Robert Graham

(2) Fetishizing Process, by Mark Lance

aragorn

MD's essay is not intended to stand alone. The other essays on the subject go more into other aspects of the subject. As a matter of fact there was hesitation on MD's part to even publish this piece because of its partial characteristics.

It is interesting that you would point to Mark Lance's piece in particular though since he would actually be arguing for exactly those aspects of democracy that is being criticized here.

Makhno

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying about Mark Lance's piece, Aragorn. It seems to me that his main point was to distinguish between formal decision-making process (either consensus or majority-rule voting), and the informal practice that groups employ. or fail to employ, while involved in that process. In other words, are people in the group actively committed to full and open discussion of issues, encouraging the participation of all members, and exploring or proposing alternative courses of action? Conversely, do people fetishize the mere mechanics of the decision-making process, while sublty - or not so subtly - discouraging dissent or questioning, and allowing the manipulation of the process by groups or individuals?

Where does M. DuPont address such theoretical questions in his essay?

aragorn

I believe we are talking about different things.

Makhno wrote:
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying about Mark Lance's piece, Aragorn. It seems to me that his main point was to distinguish between formal decision-making process (either consensus or majority-rule voting), and the informal practice that groups employ. or fail to employ, while involved in that process.

I am referring here to the direct experience that I had w/ Mark Lance (being at his 'Against Apocalyptic Anarchism' presentation that also was related to the book that he is writing along with this article) where his political trajectory was clearly arguing more for 'direct democracy' than an individuated anarchy.

Part of his conclusion reads
# A key goal of any anarchist strategy must be the development of discursive, social, and rational virtue in each other.

# Any viable anarchist society must institutionalize things like schools, discussion forums, and critical process discussions, which will allow us to form and maintain such virtues in ourselves.

# The only fully democratic way to reach a decision is to have a discussion the end of which is a consensus on what is the right decision.

Which is a pretty different orientation than questioning the role of democracy, institutions, and rationality.

Makhno wrote:
Where does M. DuPont address such theoretical questions in his essay?

I am not sure where you read that I said that MD did. These other questions are raised by other of the central essays in this issue of AJODA. MD has a couple of other writings floating around that are mostly concerned with very different topics.

A!

Makhno

I see. I did misunderstand your last post, although you might have contributed to my confusion when you said the following:

It is interesting that you would point to Mark Lance's piece in particular though since he would actually be arguing for exactly those aspects of democracy that is being criticized here.

I naturally assumed from what you wrote that you were referring to something Lance had said in the article, "Fetishizing Process", that I had mentioned before. The phrase "...those aspects of democracy that is being criticized here" is ambiguous, since it is unclear in the context of your previous post whether "here" refers to M. DuPont's essay or one of the other pieces in the current issue of Anarchy.

As to your personal experience with Mark Lance, I suppose it is quite possible that he has reached some political conclusions that some other anarchists would find questionable. Nevertheless, he makes some excellent points in the essay, "Fetishizing Process", about how formal procedures of decision-making are less important than the subjective commitment that each member of a group has to active listening, participatory discussion, and a full and honest exchange of views.

The fact that Lance has gone on in his other writings to advocate things we may, as anarchists, disagree with, does not diminish the value of the ideas I just mentioned. For example, I still find great value in Noam Chomsky's works, although I strenuously object to his support for John Kerry and electoral politics in the last presidential election.

aragorn

Makhno wrote:
I see. I did misunderstand your last post, although you might have contributed to my confusion when you said the following:

Any time there is a misunderstanding it can be attributed to both parties... and I am not that big of a fan of having detailed internet 'conversations'. I'll do it but I tend to have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

As to your personal experience with Mark Lance, I suppose it is quite possible that he has reached some political conclusions that some other anarchists would find questionable. Nevertheless, he makes some excellent points in the essay, "Fetishizing Process", about how formal procedures of decision-making are less important than the subjective commitment that each member of a group has to active listening, participatory discussion, and a full and honest exchange of views.

The fact that Lance has gone on in his other writings to advocate things we may, as anarchists, disagree with, does not diminish the value of the ideas I just mentioned. For example, I still find great value in Noam Chomsky's works, although I strenuously object to his support for John Kerry and electoral politics in the last presidential election.

Actually if you read the bullet points that serve as the conclusion to the Lance piece you will see exactly what the difference is between his position and mine (and I believe yours).

* A key goal of any anarchist strategy must be the development of discursive, social, and rational virtue in each other.

* Any viable anarchist society must institutionalize things like schools, discussion forums, and critical process discussions, which will allow us to form and maintain such virtues in ourselves.

* The only fully democratic way to reach a decision is to have a discussion the end of which is a consensus on what is the right decision.

* If our local lack of virtue prevents a fully democratic decision-making practice in a particular case, there are any number of procedural rules, and people skilled at applying such rules, to which we might turn in attempting to deal with the problem.

* If we find that we need to make a decision, but cannot reach consensus on what the right decision is, we should by all means give symmetrical authority to both action and inaction. There is no grounds for privileging one over the other in the abstract. (Of course we might agree that in this case either caution or action is to be privileged due to particular factors.)

* If we cannot come to consensus on a given issue, then the issue becomes how to make a decision, and consensus is demanded on this. Though we will likely vote, such a procedure can only be just on the basis of a rationally and morally arrived at consensus on the appropriateness of voting in this case. Voting is often the right procedure to turn to, and far more likely to be procedurally correct than is consensus procedure, but whatever authority voting procedure has will derive from consensus practice.

I would never say that Mark, or the tendency that he represents, is stupid. He is obviously an intelligent, thoughtful, concerned person. I agree with you that his analysis of consensus is very good, detailed, and engaging. I just disagree with his conclusions (and his premises but I hear you that those aren't that developed in this piece). You brought up the piece because of the consensus chunk, fair enough, I just can't read anything Lance writes without recognizing (because of my first hand experience) that what he wants is... how do I say it delicately... not the same as what I want.

Cheers.

Aragorn!

Makhno

I said that you may have contributed to my misunderstanding (which you did); I did not suggest that it was entirely your fault. As for the bullet points you mentioned, I have already read them, but they are not germane to the point I was trying to make in my last post, which was simply that, whatever disagreements you may have with Mark Lance based on his other writings or any presentation he has given, his essay, "Fetishizing Process" stands on its own merits - not so much for its analysis of consensus per se, but for its discussion of the problems that are common to all groups that emphasize process over practice (whether that process be consensus, majority-rule, or some combination of the two).

When you say you disagree with Lance's conclusions, are you referring to the conclusions he came to in the essay, "Fetishizing Process", or to the bullet points that you posted? By the way, I would never say that Mark Lance was stupid either, and I certainly wasn't implying that you did. Finally, while I may not share all of Lance's social or political goals, I do share his strong commitment to "virtuous practice" (as that term is used in "Fetishizing Process"), as well as his criticism of groups and individuals who value a mechanical procedure (voting, consensus, etc.) over the ability to use whatever process best fits the needs of a given situation.