this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
13 points (81.0% liked)

Leftism

2072 readers
1 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Solarpunk memes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I thought this was interesting, it's an overview of how an anarchist revolution would work without entrenching authoritarianism or vanguard parties.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

It is good that anarchists are open to delegation. They seem to be unable to imagine delegation to another egalitarian decision-making procedure. If this other decision-making procedure isn't serving the organization's members, it should be replaced.

A federation of worker coops where the means of production is collectivized across the federation would need some mechanism to allocate revenue from the means of production to mutual aid projects. Consensus would not be effective in this case

[–] rockSlayer 1 points 10 months ago

I'd be inclined to agree. That's where the role of unions come in, for both stewardship of the commons and managing production between communities in a library economy. A union typically elects 10% of a workplace into stewardship, and I think that's a decent number of people to represent the community in narrow circumstances. If a steward acts against the community (not automating new areas of production, acts against the bargaining priorities, etc) then I think the community should have the ability to immediately remove that steward.

[–] unfreeradical 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Anarchists seek to replace the state with systems that are constructed through full participation, not to reproduce the state with a different one that may seem to some as more appealing.

Would you mind explaining your understanding over the incompatibility between consensus and mutual aid, and what you imagine may be neither coercive or consensual?