My understanding of Anarchism and why it doesnt work.

OLP

This place is getting boring so hopefully we'll get a discussion outta this.

Basically what Anarchsim means to me is a society with no rulers or authority, a society where everyone gets along and leads perfect lives and it's all autonomous. Thats just a short summary of my interpretation of what Anarchism is, it's very much open to correction.

I can't see how a complete Anarchist society could ever be set up as it requiers
people to be able to get along, which they can't, blame evolution or God or whatever i dont know. Sure small communes of Anarchists could be set up, but sure wouldn't it be awful boring if everyone got along, thats just my oppinion.

So....discuss, but remember all of this is my understanding, interpretation and oppinion on the subject.

[EDIT] Just in case, I think it's a perfectly valid subject to discuss in the Punk forum.

Ro: maaan!

I would find nothing at all boring about a world where everyone got along. That's what I always assumed anarchism meant. But I could never understand people who push for it. Great idea and all. But it would never work. People who hate the police... My god why!

Fraggle Rocks

Anarchsim wouldnt work because people are cvnts. Its as simple as that.

democrates

Anarchism could only work where everyone opted at least to do no harm.
The truth of human nature is that some will always seek to further their own interests at the expense of others.

If the police and army disbanded, warlords would arise in short order, and in reaction, citizen militias. To protect ourselves and have a just society we'd begin to gravitate towards a body of law, a police force to enforce it, a judiciary and jails to deal with wrong-doers.

In days of yore, warlords and monarchs won favour with the people by promising justice through the rule of law. It was a huge benefit to society compared with the situation where anyone could cause damage to person or property, steal, renege on contracts etc. and nothing would be done about it. We still haven't got perfection but it's a damn sight better than a free for all.

Aside from security, it makes sense to collaborate nationally on health, education, and infrastructure.

I'll never forget reading inside a SWP paper that their goal was "to smash the state", the anarchist motive seems to be more about attacking those in power than helping the powerless. The communists made the same mistake.

OLP

Fraggle Rocks: Thats a perfect summary of what i was saying, seriously.

democrates: Thanks for the intelligent take on it, the whole "Smash The State" thing really annoys me, and dont get me started on them Communists.

curious_george

Read Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviathan' and you'll realise why Anarchism as a political system wont work.

Then listen to every Rage Against the Machine record and you'll wish Hobbes was wrong.

democrates

curious_george wrote:

Read Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviathan' and you'll realise why Anarchism as a political system wont work.

Then listen to every Rage Against the Machine record and you'll wish Hobbes was wrong.

Hobbes ideas on the social contract are well taken, but I wouldn't buy his prescription of a ruling sovereign with the people 'beneath' (always reserving the right to blare God save the Queen).

As far as I'm concerned the only sovereignty is individual, no man-made institution can be superior, monarch, nation or otherwise. I'm happy enough to vest authority in police in return for security, but only because it's a lot more practical than having to arm myself and fight the transgressors of this world, similarly with pooling taxation in return for health, education, roads etc.

RATM are justifiably angry against examples of state and corporate oppression and reckless selfishness, but like so many others who point out the wrongs of the status quo, their reaction is heavily weighted towards 'activism'. Bar a couple of exceptions they are largely playing to anger using the rhetoric of conflict and this turns a lot of people off as it just ends up sounding like a bunch of nay sayers with no plans for a better tomorrow. Fight this, challenge that etc.

Nonetheless it must be lauded that they are raising awareness of current problems and that's an important part of winning hearts and minds with a high octane shot in the arm. But it's less useful to focus on destroying the bad than it is to construct the good. The challenge is to prove workable alternatives and work to propagate them, E.G. direct democracy, worker co-operatives, fair trade to name a few.

The adoption of good measures that naturally displace the bad is far more rewarding than just losing the rag with the bad. The good news is that so many people are enraged at the machine and have enough cop on to try alternatives that the prospect of a coherent world consensus is at last beginning to arise, from Doha to Venezuela people are waking up to rip off earth, the worms are turning. It's not a question of if, but when, we the peoples of earth gain freedom and justice.

munky

OLP wrote:

I can't see how a complete Anarchist society could ever be set up

During the Spanish civil war Barcelona became the worlds first and only completly anarcistic society, untill it was over run by Franco.
It can and has been done, but it requires effort.
Probably why we'll not see another one because it has become a symbol of rebilion for ounks and the like and they don't even understand WTF anarcy is suppose to be.
They seem to take on a **** the system approach ,where as its ment to remove the system and let everybody get along with the interference from on high.

OLP

I'd put a big bet behind the reason that Barcalona could become Anarchist was because the people where temporairly united against a greater enemy, sooner or later cracks would have started showing as people realise they can get a bit of power here and there.

democrates

munky wrote:

During the Spanish civil war Barcelona became the worlds first and only completly anarcistic society, untill it was over run by Franco.
It can and has been done, but it requires effort.
Probably why we'll not see another one because it has become a symbol of rebilion for ounks and the like and they don't even understand WTF anarcy is suppose to be.
They seem to take on a **** the system approach ,where as its ment to remove the system and let everybody get along with the interference from on high.

If Franco hadn't overrun Barcelona either some other external force or an internal one would have siezed power. Unorganised peoples are defenseless against organised attack.

You must have known some bullys and gangs in your time, those mentalities are out there and boy would they love a chance to run amok. Look at what happens in countries where the rule of law is removed, instant emergence of marauding gangs terrorising the people.

You might be tempted to put it down to lack of civilisation in the third world, but look at New Orleans last year, and here in Eire during the foot and mouth outbreak in the North farmers on the south of the border began organising a militia to keep illegal beef trucks out. And even with a police force look at the drug gang scum we have at liberty.

Great things can happen when we work together but life gets very dangerous very fast when we don't. Anarchism suffers the same failing as the free market ideology, the assumption that if everyone is self-serving that's enough to serve the common good. You don't have to believe you are inferior to co-operate where it makes practical sense.

thiscityburns

Anarchists believe in a revolution by the working class which will overthrow the bosses and their governments, and create a society run and controlled by those who actually produce the wealth of the world. We believe that it is possible to live without government and to put in its place councils and assemblies where the "ordinary people" can decide what happens to this wealth. We believe in the equality of all and that maximum solidarity is needed between workers and other oppressed groups if we are to defeat those who live off our sweat.

www.struggle.ws/wsm/ - Irish anarchists.

democrates

thiscityburns wrote:

Anarchists believe in a revolution by the working class which will overthrow the bosses and their governments, and create a society run and controlled by those who actually produce the wealth of the world. We believe that it is possible to live without government and to put in its place councils and assemblies where the "ordinary people" can decide what happens to this wealth. We believe in the equality of all and that maximum solidarity is needed between workers and other oppressed groups if we are to defeat those who live off our sweat.
www.struggle.ws/wsm/ - Irish anarchists.

You believe in the equality of all, does that translate into exactly the same wealth for everyone regardless of how hard they work? How long before those working 50 hours a week react to slackers doing 10 yet getting the same reward?

A society 'run and controlled by', does that mean someone has authority to tell you what to do?

And what are councils and assemblies only Local Government with enforcement agents, or are they just talking shops where everyone goes off and does what they want afterwards regardless of what was discussed?

What do you do with criminals? Is there a police force? What if you're invaded? Is there an army?

It seems a lot of anarchists are people who simply don't want to be told what to do by others because this undermines their sense of freedom and equity. But if people have total freedom say goodbye to security and peace. Only by electing to vest authority in a police force and judiciary can we have anything approaching justice. Freedom is a balancing act.

I partly get where you're coming from, Marx described tyranny and opression quite eloquently, but his answer was the abolition of private property and the introduction of the central command economy, an experiment which resulted in the tyranny of the state which no doubt you abhor (I don't want a holiday in the sun...).

But the answer to state tyranny isn't the other extreme of non co-operation above local level. Look at swiss democracy for an example of how to co-operate at canton and national level, not just electing representatives every few years but people deciding on issues themselves. That has substantial overlap with your proposal.

The flames of objection to national government are also fanned by occurrences of corruption and incompetence, but the answer is to fix it, not abandon it. Greater transparency and accountability are the solution along with the adoption of direct democracy. That allows 'ordinary people' to better influence that which affects them. But why limit our democracy to the national level, when global events affect us too? We should have a say.

It is the lack of sufficient democratic co-operation at the international level that allows global capital to play nation against nation, we are divided and conquored as we compete for the crumbs of jobs and investment from the global corporate table. Rich nations attack poor nations economically and the footloose capitalists with loyalty only to profit make out like bandits. The failure of the Doha round happened because poor countries have copped on to the dirty tricks of the washington consensus, the mood is shifting dramatically.

It is through democratic co-operation at the global level that we can achive things like a global minimum wage, safe working conditions, kyoto2, treaties on law, food safety, the international criminal court and so on. That way the 'ordinary people' can pool their influence to achieve a sustainable just society worldwide. But if we remain divided into local groups we remain conquored.

1936

Good idea to get a discussion going OLP.


Firstly it is important to point out that there is no one concept of Anarchism. People have different interperations of anarchism and how to get to a Anarchist society.
However, judging from the comments many people are unfamiliar to the ideas of Anarchism so i will post an introductry article. Its not too long and i feel it might be a good idea to use this to construct a basis around which which we can have a proprer discussion.

What is Anarhism
Over the past fifteen years the global Anarchist movement has awakened from its long slumber. In Ireland, Anarchist ideas, and methods of organizing, are gaining a wider acceptance than ever before. However, many people still associate Anarchism with violence, destruction, and chaos. This concept of Anarchism is reinforced by the corporate media, and those that have an interest in discrediting the Anarchist movement. Needless to say this idea of Anarchism bears no correlation with the society we are trying to create, or our struggle to achieve it.
Anarchism was born in the crucible of class struggle and emerged out of the wider socialist movement. Anarchists wish to replace the economic system in which a minority live off the labour of others, with a system in which the workers, mental and manual, own, and control the wealth of society. This would allow people to decide what it is that they need. This democratically planned production would be orientated towards satisfying people’s needs rather than the insatiable greed of a minority.
However Anarchists feel that this control over the economy cannot be exercised through a centralized government. We see Freedom as at the very heart of socialism, and the fight to create it. History, rationality and our own experiences teach us that once given control, a ruling group becomes intoxicated with power and feel that they know what’s best for the rest of us. Often they will use their new found power against their enemies, even if they are the people they are supposed to represent. The bitter experiences of Russia, Spain and countless other betrayals throughout history teach us that Capitalism and hierarchies cannot be abolished from above. Freedom is not granted by governments or elites; it is won
through struggle by workers and other oppressed people.
Instead of appointing “good” bosses and leaders to run society for the rest of us, we want people to directly control all possible aspects of their life. We believe that any interaction between individuals should be under the direct control of the participants.
The basic democratic structure of our envisaged society would be worker and community councils. Here people could come together to discuss how they want the resources of society to be used. These councils would federate together on a national and international basis to plan production for the larger community. The local councils would appoint delegates to the national, regional or international councils. If a delegate overstepped their remit or went against the wishes of the council they would be stripped of their duties. In all cases the decision making power would rest with the community rather than the delegate. However, democracy will not simply decide the allocation of goods. In an anarchist society people would also control the manner in which production takes place and the conditions of their work.
Anarchism does not simply satisfy our “animal” wants; food, clothes, shelter ect. It offers us dignity, self respect and control over our own lives. It creates the conditions in which people can develop freely and realise their full potential.
Obviously we are nowhere near this idyllic state of affairs. However, Anarchists are not utopian dreamers. We recognise that it will be a long, hard struggle until our basic aims are achieved. Rather than sitting back and waiting for Capitalism to collapse, or for the revolution to come, we believe in organizing in the here and now. On a day to day basis Anarchists are involved in union and community struggles, as well as; the fight for gender equality, anti racist, anti fascist, pro-choice and many other campaigns.

Anarchism is then; an analyses of what’s wrong with society, a strategy of how to change it and a vision of a future based on solidarity, equality and Freedom.

democrates

Moved below to avoid confusion.

1936

Thought i better reply to some of the points raised rather than simply clogging the page;)
I don't post much so havn't figured out how to quote properly...

Democrates-
"A society 'run and controlled by', does that mean someone has authority to tell you what to do?" + the policing question that followed

You will get different answers to this depending what shade of anarchist you ask. Firstly, i consider it reasonable that if you choose to partake in a society you should abide by the basic rules laid down by that society. I would argue though that that people should be able to act freely as long as your actions don't impinge on the freedom of others.

The question of policing is pretty divisive in Anarcho circles.
Firstly i feel that much crime stems from the current system; weather it be: inequality. impotence, alienation etc. These would be minimised by a system in which people can take control over their own lives. Obviously there would still be crimes of passion or insanity. To protect the community i have no problem with a democratically controlled non-hierachial militia being established. Once caught the aim of the exercise is not to lock up the indiviual in order to obtain a sense of retribution. Rather it is to heal them and try and make them fit to reenter wider society.

"the answer to state tyranny isn't the other extreme of non co-operation above local level" and "If Franco hadn't overrun Barcelona either some other external force or an internal one would have siezed power. Unorganised peoples are defenseless against organised attack.

I agree. The answer to state tyranny is to create non hierachial democratic structures.

OLP-

"I'd put a big bet behind the reason that Barcalona could become Anarchist was because the people where temporairly united against a greater enemy, sooner or later cracks would have started showing as people realise they can get a bit of power here and there."

Sorry OLP, your a whole lot poorer , sorta

Very briefly what happened was the workers organisations and the union drove out the fascists following the uprising. Republician government powerless. The workers seized control of industry and began to plan it themselves. Did pretty well considering there was a civil war on. Government of republician side gradually reestablished power under the leadership of the communist party. They began to crush workers democratic structures, banned anarchists and POUM and destroyed the libertarian experiment.
more info @ http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html

You are right to say that some people will try and sieze power for themselves. Thats why we want to abolish all those institutions which allow people to do so.

There were other points raised concerning human nature and people being *****. check out http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2005/89/nature.html for an Anarchist viewpoint.

Also lots more of those type of questions dealth with @ http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/anarchism.html

For a more in depth introduction to Anarchism
try http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

For any one out there lookin to get involved check

http://www.wsm.ie - Irish Anarchist group

http://flag.blackened.net/infohub/organise -Irish anarchist group(mainly active up north)

http://www.anarchistyouth.blogspot.com - New Anarchist Youth Organisation

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grassrootsgathering - mailing list

democrates

Fine posts 1936.
I like a lot of the picture you've painted, but I still wouldn't call myself an anarchist. I'm perplexed that you propose democratic institutions at local, national, and international level, but also say you are against central government. What is the substantive difference? And why not just call it a better government, is it really opposition to the word?

The vision seems very similar to swiss style direct democracy, but not quite there. How would you ensure the democratic will is translated into action (beyond just sacking those who fail to comply), surely a civil service (even if totally outsourced to worker co-operatives) would be sensible, including a police force and judiciary?

The wikipedia page on anarchism is the subject of debate, it's fair to say it has had a splintered past and today means a lot of things to a lot of people.

Even if I agreed with all of your future vision, and all proposed means of achieving it, it must be recognised that the word 'Anarchism' faces an uphill battle to gain acceptance as a banner under which the people would unite. Be it due to media/academic/capitalist propaganda, the fact remains that the majority of people respond in the negative to the word.

If achieving the goals are more important than the branding, why sacrifice progress in order to use the word Anarchism, and not to use the word Government?

1936

Hi
Sorry, spent so long typing my last msg i missed your response.

The important point is that the they are delegates, not autonomous agents. The decision making power still lies with the community.

Your right that the majority of people still associate anarchism with violence.However the majority of people, in Ireland, also consider private property just ect ect. Anarchism has also been considered a subculture, punk, hippy ect.
Anarchists attempt to overcome this by propagandha and by, more importantly, engaging with people in their every day lives. When people get anarchist papers in their door every month and when: anarchists are involved with their local residents and community meetings, when they organise unions in work, when they help out at pickets, when the're active in the various community campagins, rossport, anti bin charges ect, people begin to realise that there is more to Anarchism than crusties and arsonists:D

The name doesn't really mean much. Liberatarian communist works as well. Happy, furry friendly collective might make us seem nicer but thats not the point. The ideas and actions are what take priority.
That said we part of a political current and history of struggle that identifies with Anarchism. It seems dishonest to attempt to cover it up.

You can find info on elections, power ect @ http://www.struggle.ws/ws/2001/65/anarchism.html and http://www.struggle.ws/ws/61/thinking.html

Fraggle Rocks

Still won't work though, because

a)most people are idiots.
b)most people are cvnts.

Sorry to rain on ye're parade :P

democrates

There's a lot of overlap in our hopes for the future 1936 (is the username harking back to the days before bunreacht na hEireann?).

I'd be in favour of private posession (property being a tad ambitious given our lifespan), and the right to inherit such title albeit subject to tax so that we don't have accelerating class division.

I'm no fan of hierarchy for it's oppression of freedom, but some measure voluntarily adopted can make for greater efficiency, and given the ecological effects of earths burgeoning populations' excessive consumption and pollution that's important.

Elected representatives are in theory accountable to the people, long after their deeds are done. The proposed Dun Laoghaire baths privatisation being a good example of the problem of representative democracy at local level, I think the fix is adequate transparency and accountability, publish all accounts and activity online, and as per the swiss system allow the local community vote on proposals in advance, including the ability for a vote of no confidence at any time.

Delegates reminds me of 'delegates to conference' from my old union days, and is a proven mechanism for wider co-operation. The unions mandate and position of power have significant shortfalls compared to those required to run a society however. I think the re-invention of the wheel by modifying the union structure would be unnecessary given the Swiss have this sussed for centuries (and must think the rest of us are idiots accepting representative democracy) and it can readily be studied and evaluated.

As for the words point, it's not that I think you should engage in a cover-up, rather to avoid a new synthesis being covered by an ill-fitting old patchwork quilt. My own aspiration is to arrive at conclusions myself and challenge everything including my own ideas, not to seek or accept labels, nor to be a glove puppet on the dead hand of the past.

Thanks to those who have given of themselves for our benefit, and let us honour them individually, but surely our job is not to follow their flag without question, rather it is to live well and hand on the best world we can. I wouldn't like to let a label adopted by a variety of historical figures with different views and records frustrate my efforts by inviting recycled criticism that has nothing to do with my evolving position.

1936

Hi.
I agree that we are reasonably close Democrates. Thanks for engaging constructively in the debate.

democrates wrote:

I'd be in favour of private posession (property being a tad ambitious given our lifespan), and the right to inherit such title albeit subject to tax so that we don't have accelerating class division.

i am against the concept of Private Property but for me the essential factor is that the means of production (factories, buisnesses ect) are collectivised. This gets rid of the exploitation of one class by another and the problems that go with it.

democrates wrote:

I'm no fan of hierarchy for it's oppression of freedom, but some measure voluntarily adopted can make for greater efficiency, and given the ecological effects of earths burgeoning populations' excessive consumption and pollution that's important.

I am unsure about the relationship between efficeny and hierachy. Its generally assumed but rarely argued.
Firstly its important to point out that hierachy doesn't automatically result in efficency. The soviet union was a very hierachial society, but hardly an efficent one. Our present system is also very hierachial and is somewhat effecient in the context of Capitalism but, from my point of view, wastes collosal amounts of money on advertising, war ect.
If we take efficency to mean avoiding wasted time and effort, and our goal is an equal society in which everyone has a say, i am unsure how a non-hierichal structure can be automatically dismissed as inefficent.

The point you raise about the enviornment is particulary relevant to this discussion. At the present enviormental safety is ignored because of the overriding drive for profits. Our enviornment is the world in which we live, and as such effects all of us, i think our actions which impact on the enviorment should be under the control of everybody. I fail to see how a population that voluntarly surrenders its decision making power to a minority would be in a better position to tackle global warming or overpopulation.

democrates wrote:

I think the fix is adequate transparency and accountability, publish all accounts and activity online, and as per the swiss system allow the local community vote on proposals in advance, including the ability for a vote of no confidence at any time.

I am unsure about the functioning of the swiss system but will make a few general points. Systems like the Swiss and Americian local administrative structures often appear democratic but contain a number of serious flaws.
I see government, local and national, as simply a part of a wider economice system. I think it was James Maddison that said goverment was simply the reflection cast by buisness over society. It harks back to the old base superstructure analysis of the Marxists (very, very crudely: the rest of society is constructed upon and influnced by the economic system).
Formal democratic structures then rarely stretch into the most important area. The arena in which people spend most of their waking lives and where the wealth of society is created. Workplace democracy and democratic control of industry is an essential part of any democratic system.

Also unless we radically rearrange the manner in which people work democratic structures will be dominated by the upper and middle classes. This is because when most people come home from an 9 hour shift, of whatever work they do, they don't want to trundle along to a community meeting three nights a week. An anarchist society would involve a complete reorganisation of work and give people more free time.
The inequalities in the education system would also be tackled.

democrates wrote:

My own aspiration is to arrive at conclusions myself and challenge everything including my own ideas, not to seek or accept labels, nor to be a glove puppet on the dead hand of the past.

A worthwhile aspiration indeed Democrates.
(Following on from what you said but not directed at you)
However as Marx said the point is not to interpret the world, but to change it. Our goal shouldn't be to arrive at the perfect philosophy and then clap ourselves on the back for a job well done. Abstract theorising can only take you so far. The process of struggle teaches you far more than books ever can.

democrates wrote:

Thanks to those who have given of themselves for our benefit, and let us honour them individually, but surely our job is not to follow their flag without question, rather it is to live well and hand on the best world we can. I wouldn't like to let a label adopted by a variety of historical figures with different views and records frustrate my efforts by inviting recycled criticism that has nothing to do with my evolving position

A good point. We don't blindly follow people but we are part of a certain tendency. Rudolph Rocker definied it along the lines of a "definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. "
Still the point you make is good and makes sense. Definately something to think about.

democrates

Greetings.

1936 wrote:

i am against the concept of Private Property but for me the essential factor is that the means of production (factories, buisnesses ect) are collectivised. This gets rid of the exploitation of one class by another and the problems that go with it.

So workers co-operatives have leasehold on the means on production, I like that idea, but as an individual homeowner with clothes and furniture I'd be loathe to lose freehold on my assets, I want my children to have an inheritance based on my lifes work. Inheritance tax done right can avoid the rise of dynasties, and I'd also like to have the freedom to provide for my old age through investments, I shouldn't be forced to squander my earnings.

1936 wrote:

I am unsure about the relationship between efficeny and hierachy. Its generally assumed but rarely argued.
Firstly its important to point out that hierachy doesn't automatically result in efficency. The soviet union was a very hierachial society, but hardly an efficent one. Our present system is also very hierachial and is somewhat effecient in the context of Capitalism but, from my point of view, wastes collosal amounts of money on advertising, war ect.
If we take efficency to mean avoiding wasted time and effort, and our goal is an equal society in which everyone has a say, i am unsure how a non-hierichal structure can be automatically dismissed as inefficent.

Largely in agreement, if there is specialisation of labour for efficiency, some roles need to focus on certain responsibilities, and others need to co-operate. Though at any time a meeting can be called to vote on an issue an individual deems important. That power is self-regulating, people won't weather constant meetings over trivialities.

My inspiration on this is the example of Semco in Brazil who introduced what they called the 'three rings' organisation. Ricardo Semler who pioneered this with his management team argues strongly agains the central command hierarchy in both of his books "Maverick!", and "The seven day weekend".
Though it can be seen as a four level hierarchy, it allows workers to elect their bosses among other democratic and equality measures, so kudos for all that. However, Semco still has owners who are paid dividends (dating from it's origins), so there's still room for improvement on that point.

Given that 'duty of care', 'Chief fire marshall', 'line manager' etc are enshrined in legislation, it's likely to be some time before workers co-operatives can experiment with ditching hierarchy altogether, and I think the growth of worker co-ops will drive legislative change in the future as part of the process of improvement.

The most important distinction for me whatever organisation structure is agreed and whatever we call it or don't call it, is that people are in charge of tasks, but not other people, and must consider the impact of their actions on others.

1936 wrote:

The point you raise about the enviornment is particulary relevant to this discussion. At the present enviormental safety is ignored because of the overriding drive for profits. Our enviornment is the world in which we live, and as such effects all of us, i think our actions which impact on the enviorment should be under the control of everybody. I fail to see how a population that voluntarly surrenders its decision making power to a minority would be in a better position to tackle global warming or overpopulation.

Concur. Noam Chomsky rightly describes it as "socialise the risk and privatise the profit" in 'Rogue States',and David Korten calls it "externalising costs" in 'The Post-Corporate World'. Countless others have made the same observation.

1936 wrote:

I am unsure about the functioning of the swiss system but will make a few general points. Systems like the Swiss and Americian local administrative structures often appear democratic but contain a number of serious flaws.
I see government, local and national, as simply a part of a wider economice system. I think it was James Maddison that said goverment was simply the reflection cast by buisness over society. It harks back to the old base superstructure analysis of the Marxists (very, very crudely: the rest of society is constructed upon and influnced by the economic system).
Formal democratic structures then rarely stretch into the most important area. The arena in which people spend most of their waking lives and where the wealth of society is created. Workplace democracy and democratic control of industry is an essential part of any democratic system.

Also unless we radically rearrange the manner in which people work democratic structures will be dominated by the upper and middle classes. This is because when most people come home from an 9 hour shift, of whatever work they do, they don't want to trundle along to a community meeting three nights a week. An anarchist society would involve a complete reorganisation of work and give people more free time.
The inequalities in the education system would also be tackled.

The swiss system is unique, as a direct democracy you can vote on issues directly from local by-laws to federal law covering all cantons, not just elect representatives and hope they do as promised. Also any citizen can propose changes to the law, collect signatures and set the wheels in motion. Together with full transparency this type of democracy can neutralise the ability of private interests to corrupt it. But democracy is worthless unless our votes are translated into action.

Expanding on my view of fixing the three distinct branches of government, the legislature (politicians or delegates), elected by the people democratically and formulate legislation with the assisance of senior civil servants and the attorney general. Predictably I'm for transparent direct democracy on this to keep it honest.

The judiciary should remain there to sort out the mess when citizens do harm (agreed this should diminish in a better society), and a police force (which some people are free to refer to as the militia) to investigate and present transgressors for due process.

Then there is the public service, working to translate the peoples wishes into reality. That too needs a dose of transparency with planned and historic finances and operations open to online public scrutiny.

Though there should be democratic oversight, I don't see why these have to be the same people we elect to legislate, which is a different job. Any citizen should be able to raise issues for the public accounts committee, we should have the right to democratic input at all levels.

No doubt you agree that the central command hierarchies of government departments stifle innovation, as people tend to do whatever they did before that didn't get them into trouble. Within the safety net of transparency and democratic accountability, something along the lines of the semco model would be my preference, allowing public servants to innovate as they see fit to better serve the welfare of society.

In that scenario, instead of a monolithic government being an agent of elite elements in the economy, it's seperate elements would co-operate as required and become the right arm of the people, who together in worker co-ops, are the economy which is just one aspect of society. Our collective economic performance directly affects our capacity to achieve our over-arching goal of social justice, from health and education to common municipal utilities.

1936 wrote:

...However as Marx said the point is not to interpret the world, but to change it. Our goal shouldn't be to arrive at the perfect philosophy and then clap ourselves on the back for a job well done. Abstract theorising can only take you so far. The process of struggle teaches you far more than books ever can.

Agreed, the struggle can't specialise in theory and dissent, but must also be enjoyable work to introduce better alternatives that can start today, even if they don't achieve the ideal in one step.

Hence I believe that the workers co-operative movement is key, and I'm working towards one now. Let alone does it create justice in the workplace, as it flourishes it replaces the capitalist cancer, reducing the power of those who oppose the emergence of a real peoples democracy and just society. I'm optimistic that it's a question of when, not if. Once we have won control of production, we can test out all the social and political ideas we like, and vote for those that work best.