Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Dear PVR,

I agree on Anarchism as the accomplishing the human need of freedom.

Buttt... as soon as the Anarchism principles are put into current
communication
relationships, i.e. free discussion, since communication is in itself
hierarchical,
anarchism becomes paradoxical. nonsense. Anarchism cannot but be a private
business, outside from (public) discussion sharing-in.

Hoping this helps,

regards, antonio



Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan ha scritto:
> Dear Mirek and all,
> I am giving below the link to an article on the merits of Anarchism:
> http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/12/11/stories/2005121100030100.htm
> Anarcho-syndicalism, the term used in Mirek's post is probably
> synonymous with Voluntary Socialism advocated by Noam Chomsky.
> The reason that Anarchism is attractive is that it recognises the
> basic human need for freedom of the spirit. The challenge is to devise
> a system that allows this freedom and yet has a working structure that
> enables people to coexist and live in a community.
> The various struggles, including the 'Oxaca story', are attempts to
> manifest the spirit of freedom in the face of authoritarian system,
> that fails to appreciate because of its own inadequacy to do so.
> Simply downplaying Anarchism, as Bruce is doing, without trying to
> understand the spirit behind it will not help to make progress in
> human thought.
>
> PVR
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 MKolar wrote :
> > Dear all,
> > This is a copy of my post at the WDDM Forum,
> http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?5,511,511#msg-511 .
> > I encourage you to place any possible replies directly in the Forum
> (however, if something relevant comes here, I'll copy it into the Forum):
> > On July 28, 2007 I attended the Grassroots Social Awareness Festival
> (organized by Popular Participation Movement,
> http://www.ppmnanaimo.com/. Many interesting local organizations
> participated. Several were calling for increased participation of
> citizens in decision making about various local issues (airport
> expansion, waterfront development). There was also an anarchist
> (anarcho-syndicalist) stand where I picked up various literature. What
> caught my eye first was the text titled "WHAT IS ANARCHISM?". It is
> quoted in the quote below. You can also find it in on the Nanaimo
> Anarchist Network site at http://www.geocities.com/vcmtalk/nan1.html.
> (While you are there, I also recommend to read WHY DO WE NEED
> ANARCHISM? at http://www.geocities.com/vcmtalk/nan1.html - it's about
> what to do to improve society, something we seem to have hard time
> here to arrive at).
> > There was some posts against anarchism in our mailing lists rather
> recently. I am posting this here because for me the points listed
> below do constitute exactly what I believe is the Democracy (ideal of
> Democracy or True Democracy or Direct Democracy). So apparently I am
> also an anarcho-syndicalist. Note that the Anarchists also have Direct
> Democracy only as one constituent point in what makes a good society,
> that is what we called I&R here.
> > Thus
> >
> > 1. we should really make clear what we understand under the term
> Direct Democracy. I for one always meant under this term all what is
> listed in the inset below. And I had this in mind what I accepted to
> task of the webmaster to help revive WDDM some two years ago.
> > 2. It would be interested to know what others think of the list
> below. How many do agree that all these points are necessary for a
> functioning democracy. I suggest that you post your thoughts on this
> in replies to this post.
> > 3. Do you still have any objections to anarchism?
> >
> > [quote]
> > WHAT IS ANARCHISM?
> >
> > It does NOT stand for chaos, violence, bomb-throwing or disorder.
> What it does stand for is:
> > * [b]Decentralization[/b] - Centralization of political and economic
> power leads to abuse and corruption. Political and the economic
> structures should be human-scale.
> > * [b]Liberty[/b] – each person should be free to do what they wish
> providing they do no harm to other people.
> > * [b]Self-management[/b] - Each person should have control over
> those situations that effect him/her, in both the work place and the
> community.
> > * [b]Federation[/b] – decentralized groups, whether communities or
> work places unite in a federation to create an "economy of scale"
> without creating an authoritarian, top-down structure.
> > * [b]Autonomy[/b] – each group or community should have the right to
> control those aspects which effect it.
> > * [b]Direct Democracy[/b] – Decisions ought to be taken directly by
> the people effected. Where decisions must be made at a larger scale,
> such as with a federation, recallable delegates are selected.
> > * [b]Localism[/b] – It is best for the environment that as much as
> possible of our needs are met locally.
> > * [b]Regionalism[/b] – We live in a place and that place is a
> region. Each region has its own history, environment and culture and
> these are the basis of community.
> > * [b]Community[/b] – A lack of community brings social breakdown. We
> must work to restore community.
> > * [b]Internationalism[/b] – Nothing exists in isolation, and in
> truth "an injury to one, is an injury to all" The destruction of a
> community abroad helps to undermine community locally. The repression
> of workers overseas, leads to the oppression of workers here.
> > [/quote]
> >
> > In this context it may be appropriate to place one more link, a link
> to a quote from the lecture by Andre Carrel titled "Democracy: Back to
> Basics" at http://canadianvoices.org/speakers.php?id=22. There you
> will find: "[b]Democracy’s premises are equality and
> responsibility[/b]. These simple propositions have yet to be achieved
> after centuries marked by wars and revolutions fought in the name of
> democratic ideals."
> > [b]Democracy = equality and responsibility[/b] seems to be very
> compatible with the list above. And having this in mind you can see
> why I was so strongly questioning (opposing) the admission to WDDM of
> somebody who calls 'True Democracy' a system based on unequal classes
> of citizens. (While this may be a workable idea for a transitional
> system for some jurisdictions to give some voice to classes of
> citizens who do not have any voice at all at present, I am strongly
> against calling such a system a democracy, and even add the qualifier
> 'true'. Again, we should made our mind on what we want to be: a group
> promoting the ideal of Democracy, or an unfocused discussion club.
> > Mirek