Anarchism and Democracy 

Wow. This was a phenomenal video! I am so glad you made it. It clarified several recurring debates and also helped give me some grounding in specifics that I didn't have before. Thank you for your work Zoe!

yet another certified hood classic from zoe, our (democratically-elected) queen

Thank you Zoe. It's so nice to be able to learn about history of Anarchism. This is valuable content. Democracy to people means that their opinions are included in the decision making. With this definition nothing could be more democratic than Anarchism.

No idea what this channel is but since this seems to be on anarchism I am already on board. Excited to watch this later.

This is sooo good! Forever my No.1 recommendation for people who want to learn more about anarchism without going straight to books! Well done! I really appreciate the nuance here. Far too often I see opponents of anarchism and even some anarchists take this ridiculous black and white view on things while ignoring all the degrees of difference in the world. Like yes, we oppose the state but we don't oppose all states in the same ways and there are situations (like when benefits are cut) that anarchists are some of the first to hit the streets to see a state function kept intact. My position on welfare programs and the military aren't the same despite both being state functions just like I don't view fascist states, CP lead states, monarchies, and Liberal Democracy as equals. Reform and Revolution aren't as mutually exclusive, as some like to claim, and reform isn't entirely worthless, as Emma Goldman wrote on so beautifully. We live in an incredibly complex world and if your perspective doesn't reflect as much it's not relevant to anyone. Stay at it, family! ✊👊🖤☮️🥀🏴🌐A///E

It is frustrating that so many people misunderstand what anarchism is, but it makes a bit more sense when you realize that even anarchists seem to have trouble getting it straight.

This is an incredible video/essay. I have to agree with the mixture of majority voting and consensus as a means of decision-making. Probably for the past 2 years, I've agreed with it.

Thanks for putting this together. I think one of the important things to consider is how whatever model anarchists pick for making decisions will reinforce certain traits. 2 groups that are both anarchist but with different ways of making decisions can easily come into conflict in ways 2 groups with different ideologies but common decision making often won't

Trying to get into old political works is like trying to demolish a building with a pool noodle. Thank you so much for making this information understandable and interesting.

Thank you for doing the long and hard work of digging up the hidden and forgotten history of Leftism and Anarchism. To know that people have been thinking about freedom like this for years is really reassuring.

I'd say, in modern terms, anarchists are against majoritarianism, which is sometimes called democracy, but is not democracy.

Mario with Malatesta's head is not something that I thought I needed

Thank you for this video. Cringy individualist anarchists on Reddit seem to be against these tried and true methods of decision making used in anarchist groups, worker councils, and communes which has troubled me deeply. I’m glad you’re shedding more light on the subject by explaining how they are wrong, and that direct democracy / vote taking was used and advocated for.

I’d not seen any of your videos prior to this one, but i found this really interesting. *subscribes*. An interesting example of this sort of arrangement working well in practice is that the way that Alcoholics Anonymous is organised means that it could almost be called Anarchists Anonymous: group autonomy, delegates rather than representatives; a preference for decisions being by “substantial unanimity” achieved through discussion (with majority votes only as a last resort); and these decisions generally regarded as suggestions rather than binding on groups or individuals.

This is most clarity I’ve heard on an issue that so many silly online conversations get caught up in - thank you!

efore i watch this video, some thoughts it seems to me like most criticisms of democracy coming from anarchists arre actually just criticism of bourgeois/liberal/representative democracy. these i 100% agree with. the remasinging criticisms mostly come from the tyranny of the majority argument. I think statements like "end democracy" or "democracy is tyranny" are statements about 90 percent of the time made purely for the sake of online lefty points or edgelord value, while making the anarchist movement VERY vulnerable to fascist entryism, a prime example being the boogaloo boy types so, i think anarchism should always be billed to the public as radically pro democracy, and that we should fight to redefine that word, just as some are doing with libertarian

Thank you so much for your work!🏴❤️🖤🏴

Always super good content! Thank you Zoe

Wow this is such an amazing resource, quickly becoming my fave channel, thank you Zoe!!!!

I always enjoy listening to u! always teaches new outlooks and history. keep up the good work Zoe

Wiggy is here

Excellent video as always Zoe. My opinion is that we probably shouldn't use "direct democracy" when talking about Anarchism, because it has a rather specific connotation, but I think we absolutely can use the term "democracy" in a more general sense. As long as it's deliberately distinguishable from the common understanding of democracy (aka representative democracy). Something like "Radical democracy", "stateless democracy", would probably be ok imo.

Great vid, can really tell it was a crafted labour of love.

Loved this! Very informative. I’m still slowly learning about anarchism, don’t know a lot yet but I realized many things align with my values and understanding of the world. Zoe, my only suggestion as someone whose first language isn’t english is to put english CC on the video. I read the script you made available while I listened to the video but i guess subtitles make things easier. Thanks for the video

Great video Zoe! Thank you!

Great vid, comprehensive and detailed!

Well researched and thorough. I have to say that was excellent work. Great video presentation visuals too.

Wow that was very insightful. Thanks a lot!

This has cleared up so many questions I've had with anarchism that I haven't been able to get a clear answer on in the past! Great video essay:)

Once again zoe Amazing work You are incredible

Thanks for this well-researched and concise overview of such a complicated topic! Regarding the debate over whether the decisions of a federation should be binding on all groups and individuals within the federation, I think it can be argued that Malatesta's position is contradictory. On the one hand he says federation decisions should not be binding, and on the other hand he says that those who just do whatever they want in an organization without regard for its decisions should be expelled. I don't think this position is necessarily contradictory, but it needs elaboration on what the boundaries are between tolerable and intolerable refusal of collective decisions. I was confused by 33:05 to 34:45: The argument was that majority rules decision making is ok so long as it's not binding on the minority who disagrees. An example is given which is meant to demonstrate a majority-rules decision that the dissenting minority is not bound by. But it seems to me that the example demonstrates the opposite! It was a vote at a meeting over whether anti-militarism should be removed from the meeting agenda. The majority voted to keep it. The minority who disagreed had to accept that this remains on the agenda. They were, in effect, bound to the decision. This makes me wonder if maybe I'm interpreting the term "binding decision" or "bound to a decision" in a different way than these old-school anarchists are intending.

worth the wait

Great video as always Zoe

thanks for making this, this is an incredibly good, interesting and helpful video!

Wonderful work, as always. Precision immaculate, detailed. Thank you for your efforts and for featuring my silly anarchist raccoon drawings.

Love your work Zoe :)

Another great video!

This has been super useful for me, as a socialist, to begin understanding what Anarchism actually is. Hasn't really changed my preference for socialist democracy, but I think I see at least why someone might like the idea of Anarchy.

Great video that clarifies so much…thankyou very much

Very nice job dear Zoe! Greetings from Argentina!

I will highly recommend reading the text Against democracy by the coordination of anarchist groups, coordination that faced the Pandora operation in spain during the 2011-14 movement, the text is a complete modern analysis of democracy from its real meaning that is de-mos =Demiurgi and Geomori (craftmen and farmers) Kratos= state, the state of craftmen and farmers in wish being a male owner wasn't enough you had to be a pillar of the economy to had a part in politics and in the top since the offices were not paid and only those on top could afford to not work more than 2 years, to the modern vision of democracy and the error of dissident movements to follow the rhetoric of the US in the moral reality of democracy as standard that guarantee the hegemonic uni-vision of today that makes possible to impose this in all movements and impossible to imagine a reality out of it, the text also explores the connection between democracy and the nuclear family as the key columns of the producers of producers for the state, i think that after this well done video it can give a deeper understanding from the eyes of the auto-named antidemocratic anarchists that frighted sush operation. Thank you for your videos Zoe i appreciate them

I always thought that communists wanted a democratic stateless, classless, moneyless social system. And that Anarchists are communists who wanted that system to focus especially/fundamentally on empowering, uplifting and support individually guided development and expression of every single human. As opposed to some other communists (*tankies for example) who might still feel will of the majority and the overall public good let them trample some 'sacrificial' individuals; exclude some outliers "for the good of the community". This authoritarianism , I maintain, is something we must always be aware for on the left (** why we fight amongst ourselves so much, perhaps). Love your videos. Thank you.

Good work!

what a wonderful reminder that each of us develops our own definitions of so many words we people talk past one another so much, often because we simply don't understand what one another are actually talking about just 8 minutes into this video, i'm recognizing how my own ideas about "democracy" and "anarchism" are a mish-mash of many other people's different ideas about both and i'm seeing how my ideas about racism, misogyny, colonialism, imperialism, fascism, and many more crucial political ideas/systems/realities are also my own mish-mashes - i shouldn't expect anyone else to "understand' any of those big ideas the same way i "understand" them learning to understand what each person means when they say "democracy" - or any word describing any other "big idea" - is a challenge to each person's ability to communicate, to organize, to empathize, to ... ... ... aw, fuck ... ... mind blown fuckin cool essay, zoe thank you

Could you do a video on the types of structures and organizations successful anarchist movements built?

fabulous video it addresses what i'd consider my position to have been already, but the historical lens applied to compare contexts & break down the rigidity of language that divides comrades is extremely useful. thank u

time to show this to my liberal friends, great stuff

Cool, this is going to be interesting.

great vid

Finally someones talking bout Galleani

love it!

Would love to hear your videos in podcast form

Good video!

What about situations that affect humans globally, such as a pandemic or other global environmental issue? How would the non-binding nature of majoritarian decision-making prevent the problems associated with non-cooperation in coordinated needs?

ty

Thank you for saying the words I'm not always the best in saying

HOW DID YOU GET THE RECORDING OF RUDOLF ROCKER

I think we should use direct democracy, the concept, as a core principle of free asscoiation, which we should use as the core principle itself.. Brilliant video as per usual Zoe.

i appreciate anything with mario and luigi

LONG LIVE ANARCHY!

Amazing video, I would love to hear your takes on what should be our current strategy of decision making in anarchist struggle and society. For exemple, Graeber in the book fragments of an anarchist anthropology made a very strong argument for consensus decision making, pointing to the fact that, aside from Athens, anthropological studies on societies with collective decision making were done by consensus, Athens, being the most competitive society in ancient Greece, would, according to Graeber, also make its political decision a competition, that's why the majority vote was in place, because ideas would compete for it's implementation.

A very complete and clear exposition of the topic. Good job. Can I ask what is the differenze between consensus and unanimity?

yea yea yea yea zoe zoe zoe zoe zoe

Cool video.

The Syndicalist Anarchism disclude everyone who is not employed. The for various reasons unemployed, chronically ill and disabled,; as well as the self-employed, and puts them out of the equation of society/community.

amazing video! great topic, great research, great presentation

Just to chime in for my fellow consensus heads, Graeber's "Are you an anarchist? The answer may suprise you!" refers to anarchy as being consensus based

I think that we have to appreciate this about the athenian democracy (while obviously ignoring that only 12% of the populace actually were included): for a certain period the demos truly held power (before the tyrannis of the 30). To choose offices by lot and not through vote, to restrict offices by one term and other safeguards, ment that the assembly held immense power (the extense is probably best illustrated by the battle of arginusae), not comparable to any state that followed it. This obviously ment, that should one be able to effectively manipulate the demos, one would control this power, as shown by figures like Kimon or Perikles and criticised by the 4th century philosophers. Nonetheless it is amazing, that this experiment was so successful and that we have literary evidence of it. From an anarchist perspective the majority rule of the aseembly forced the Athenian demos into a devastating war and subjugated countles Poleis. The demos was also the master of the rest of the athenian populace, making women, children, foreigners and actual slaves its subjects.

Engagement for the engagement god!

banger

Do you think democracy or voting in general is coercive?

_Spread the bread, algorhithm!_

23:30 I don't think direct democracy was possible until the internet age. It will also be necessary to reclaim/clawback patents, lands, and monies from the rich/corporations. Nationalize human necessities, establish a true meritocracy, eliminate debt based economics. We can connect a paycheck/ubi to voting, maintaining the political and economic systems, will be our "jobs". Pay people to learn, instead of paying to learn, learning is work.

Majoritarianism/majoritarian democracy is a useful way to distinguish democracy that places the majority over the minority from voluble democratic where everyone agrees to have an equal say

I think choosing to use a definition of democracy that's excludes anarchism as a form is a grave mistake that makes it very difficult to convince anyone that anarchism is a good idea.

LET'S FUGGIN GOOOOO

Anyone going to the Rainbow Family Gathering this July can meet me at Faerie Fuel

Even though i myself am a ML it was very interesting. I agree on most parts besides ofc the soviet republics not being real democracies. And still oppressing the people. Whilst there still is class struggle indeed, we’re working towards communism. For most people and for society as a whole it isn’t easy to make such a switch immediatly. If someone thinks I came to the wrong conclusion or misunderstood something please do respond.

Very confusing to me, great video.

Based

Would anarchism be implemented within society or from without? It seems to me that anarchist societies have always arisen within broader revolutionary, progressive, or labor movements, or they are established as tiny communes that exists outside society. Even when anarchist societies do rise within broader societal movements, they are a tiny minority and have died out even before those movements were fully crushed by counter-revolutionaries.

What happened to twitter account?

imo an entirely horizontal and decentralized conception of anarchy is problematically Humanist. Why should the full autonomy of human individuals constitute an eternal goal when applying the same goal to single-celled organisms who were alone on this planet for the majority of life's existence would preclude humans from even existing? Overcentralization is a possibility for systems to become non-viable, yes. Just imagine if your central consciousness had to micromanage literally everything going on in your body. That would be totally non-viable and we can be glad about how autonomous the various parts of our bodies are, but on the other hand it is only through their interdependence and to a certain extent centrally coordinated nature that we as human subjects can even emerge. Likewise, a conception of anarchy or communism that reflects this apparent trajectory of life and viable systems in general needs to be open to some degree of centralization and ultimately even toward decentering the human individual. Even transhumanist Anarchism to my knowledge is mostly content with critiquing the "human" part of "human individual". The least Humanist anarchism might just be Daoist Anarchism.

W

I don't know if I missed it, or the term is agreed upon, but what defines "Historical anarchist" vs "modern anarchist"? Is there a time period or event in which these two sets of people are split?

While I do think that this an excellent resource for understanding the general anarchist position on "democracy" in its historical context, one thing that I think is missing here are the actual viewpoints of those anarchists who were opposed to the majority vote and often to large-scale assemblies and organisations in general, particularly given that you cite Luigi Galleani, an insurrectionary anarchist who explicitly drew on the those traditions. While Errico Malatesta was fairly explicit in his condemnation of individualist anarchism, Malatesta is not the be-all and end-all of anarchist thought, particularly not in his own historical context as an Italian anarchist of the early twentieth century; it would be interesting to contrast his more organisational approach with, for example, the ethical egoism of the flamboyant revolutionary antifascist Renzo Novatore, or indeed Galleani's own take on anarchism, which in many ways bridged the gap between the two.

Malatesta should've been Luigi. Case closed!

I'll watch this video later when I have the mental strength necessary haha

16:23 historical take on socialist society, that it (rule of majority over minority) could not actually occur 16:43 says not delegates but governors with power threat of force 17:29 collective decisions in community/workplace assemblies 32:20 communist 33:00 purges 36:14 **consider this unanimity of conviction to executing such decisions 35:50 fleeing bolsheviks - ** though the Bolshevik’s are not anarchist is not what they were attempting including the commitment to communal decisions almost exactly what they left to write about what was right ? *As with democracy and its different definitions there are often the same actions carried out under different names and with the same ultimate goals but dedicated to being opposed - not always but in this circumstance 40:00 democracy without the state = free association / anarchy 40:42 consensus 41:23 **state has the power of the “only legitimate” use of violence - **this is similar to the decision making process of when violence is justified (though it is the institutionalized condition which makes the state powerful, which is not possessed by the majority) **which is why though it could be argued that even anarchism requires a state for revolution - as the state is not some abstract governing body, but a conglomerate that is wielding legitimized use of power. (Which in all common sense ought to be stopped, and is entirely for oppression of all people (save the tiny few ruling elites who also would be subsumed if capitalism is left to its course) - versus the legitimated use of violence against the continuation of this system AND its return to power - and in truly free association / anarchy there is no legitimate use of violence (under these definitions of the state having the only legitimate use) without , in theory, creations and destructions of tiny Micro states over and over. (This understanding of a “micro state” doesnt really make sense , it is essentially a philosophical consideration trying to break down what the implications of this position on violence are - it would not be perceived logically as any kind of state but as community morals, etc.

I don't understand how anarchists can be anti-government and anti-democracy, and yet still organize themselves in a way that requires everyone to agree on how things should be run, and even sometimes enforcing things with violence, for example. It often feels like anarchists are against certain words but ultimately envisage a society that has many of the key qualities that current ones have. That's not to say that current systems aren't deeply flawed, but it doesn't seem like anarchists are suggesting something that's *fundamentally* different. If the argument is indeed just that our systems could be much better, then of course I would agree. I think a lot of people would. And I think that's what we currently have - social democracy - where we take action to make reforms that improve the system. That's not to say that that's working even nearly good enough, or that it will ever be, but that's at least what we're *trying* to do. You also have to take into account the fact that our systems aren't manifestations of pure ideology, but rather have a long historical current to them, which explains the huge concentrations of wealth and power and massive inequality that we are trying to address on an ongoing basis. I'm trying to understand anarchism and what it actually entails, so I would appreciate anyone providing their thoughts on this.

Hm. I guess I'm of the opinion that majority votes should only represent a snapshot of people's viewpoints at a certain time. Consequently a very fluid system of consensus is needed and the body that votes should be able to create or dissolve policies and viewpoints at will. I'm thinking here strictly in the sense of polities, although one could argue that polities are not the ideal way of structuring society. On the other hand, when people live next to each other, it necessarily requires an agreement to behave civilly, so I struggle to imagine how society would function without at least a vague notion of polity. That being said, if all the members of a certain polity are okay with someone's actions that go against a wider resolution, I believe that would be the way in which certain resolutions are non-binding. It really comes down to what the grass roots community councils think, because they're in charge of their specific polities. So in that case, communities could pretty much run things how they wanted as long as there were a consensus within that community, and it would be no harm no foul

Anarcho bureaucracy?

Comment for the algorithm

We need change...yesterday 🌍🔥 🔥 🐖 🔥

Uff, dense.

comment for algorithm

28:46 hehe

This explained it well but i still dont get how majority rule democracy with the option to leave the association is anarchist Like if i am in an association to manage the local roads or idk anything of that sorts i would have the freedom to disagree in an anarchist society and the freedom to leave that association to found a new one but mine will inevitably be useless since i cant really organise the roads or have "jurisdiction" over where to build roads vis a vis the other roads organisation Doesnt this in effect just mean that majority rule is still firmly in place and that the only chance for me to really disagree and do my own thing is to move out in the woods which is more or less the same chance we have now

I just don't see anarchism without democracy. I'm not referring to our booshy modern plutocractic representative democracy. I just think for Anarchism to work fuck even just socialism to succeed egalitarian direct democracy is needed.

What was Bookchin advocating for when he said democracy? Anarchist majority decision making or a super democratic state?