Comments on "From Freedom to Democracy": Difference between revisions
m (→TLDR: reworded) |
(→TLDR: split into paragraphs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== TLDR == | == TLDR == | ||
The word "democracy" is used to refer to two completely different things: On the one hand it refers to the original meaning of "rule by the people," and on the other, it refers to abstract ideals such as equality, inclusivity, and participation. This lack of distinction is a problem for social movements that call for "more democracy" (in the latter sense), not realising that the ideals they wish to uphold are incompatible with democratic institutions (in the original sense). Even directly democratic organisations inevitably silence minorities and enforce decisions upon people who do not agree with them. By calling for "more democracy," social movements from as early as 1848 in France all the way up to global uprisings such as the occupy movements that began in 2011 have repeatedly found their movements recreating or reinventing the oppressive structures that they had set out to revolt against, with the movement eventually dissolving back into electoral politics, with no fundamental changes to the system. The only way to combat this trend is to be aware of how direct democracy recreates representative democracy, to show how the central ideals of democracy are inherently authoritarian, and to develop a social context in which no one is allowed to accumulate institutional power over anyone else; in other words, what we need is not ''democracy'' but ''anarchy''. | The word "democracy" is used to refer to two completely different things: On the one hand it refers to the original meaning of "rule by the people," and on the other, it refers to abstract ideals such as equality, inclusivity, and participation. | ||
This lack of distinction is a problem for social movements that call for "more democracy" (in the latter sense), not realising that the ideals they wish to uphold are incompatible with democratic institutions (in the original sense). Even directly democratic organisations inevitably silence minorities and enforce decisions upon people who do not agree with them. | |||
By calling for "more democracy," social movements from as early as 1848 in France all the way up to global uprisings such as the occupy movements that began in 2011 have repeatedly found their movements recreating or reinventing the oppressive structures that they had set out to revolt against, with the movement eventually dissolving back into electoral politics, with no fundamental changes to the system. | |||
The only way to combat this trend is to be aware of how direct democracy recreates representative democracy, to show how the central ideals of democracy are inherently authoritarian, and to develop a social context in which no one is allowed to accumulate institutional power over anyone else; in other words, what we need is not ''democracy'' but ''anarchy''. | |||
== Comments == | == Comments == | ||
== Notes == | == Notes == | ||
Revision as of 00:08, 11 February 2025
From Freedom to Democracy: The Difference Between Government and Self-Determination is a 2017 book published by CrimethInc., a collective of anarchist writers. The book is available for free on their website.
The book is written by a group of anonymous[1] authors who participated in the mass movements (such as the Occupy movement) that took place in America and Europe from 2011~2014. Based on their collective experience in these mass movements, which were noted for utilising directly democratic decision making structures, the authors argue that the ultimate failure of any of the movements to bring about substantive systemic change was largely due to participants conceptualising their movement as "democratic."
The authors make the case that upholding certain decision making structures as "more legitimate" than myriad other decentralised structures also found within the movement inevitably recreates the very statist, authoritarian, non-inclusive institutions that the participants had been revolting against in the first place.
TLDR
The word "democracy" is used to refer to two completely different things: On the one hand it refers to the original meaning of "rule by the people," and on the other, it refers to abstract ideals such as equality, inclusivity, and participation.
This lack of distinction is a problem for social movements that call for "more democracy" (in the latter sense), not realising that the ideals they wish to uphold are incompatible with democratic institutions (in the original sense). Even directly democratic organisations inevitably silence minorities and enforce decisions upon people who do not agree with them.
By calling for "more democracy," social movements from as early as 1848 in France all the way up to global uprisings such as the occupy movements that began in 2011 have repeatedly found their movements recreating or reinventing the oppressive structures that they had set out to revolt against, with the movement eventually dissolving back into electoral politics, with no fundamental changes to the system.
The only way to combat this trend is to be aware of how direct democracy recreates representative democracy, to show how the central ideals of democracy are inherently authoritarian, and to develop a social context in which no one is allowed to accumulate institutional power over anyone else; in other words, what we need is not democracy but anarchy.
Comments
Notes
- ↑ The copyright page of the book states that all of the authors, except for one, chose to remain anonymous to "emphasize the collective nature of the project." It's not clear who the non-anonymous author is, but at one point there is a note that Georgia Sagri is "the sister of the primary author of the preceding chapter." (133)