The Anarchist Library Anti-Copyright Are Anarchism and Democracy Opposed? A Response to Crimethinc Wayne Price Wayne Price Are Anarchism and Democracy Opposed? A Response to Crimethinc 15 July 2016 anarchistnews.org theanarchistlibrary.org 15 July 2016 Contents Opposition to Existing Bourgeois Representative Democracies ................... 8 II. Is Democracy Oppressive in Principle? . 11 Have Anarchists Advocated Democracy? . 13 Conclusion ....................... 14 References ....................... 15 3 Malatesta, Errico (1995). The Anarchist Revolution: Polem- Summary: Crimethinc has initiated a discussion about the ical Articles 1924-1931. (V. Richards, ed.) London: Freedom relationship between anarchism and democracy. Their opinion Press. is that anarchism must be opposed to democracy—not only to Price, Wayne (2009). “Anarchism as Extreme Democracy.” bourgeois representative democracy but also to direct, partic- The Utopian. ipatory, libertarian-socialist, democracy. I argue, instead, that www.utopianmag.com there is a struggle over the meaning of “democracy,” and that Wood, Ellen Meiksins (1995). Democracy Against Capital- anarchism can and should be interpreted as the most radical, ism: Renewing Historical Materialism. NY: Cambridge Univer- decentralized, and participatory extension of democracy. sity Press. *** Crimethinc, the “Ex-Workers’ Collective,”is organizing a dis- cussion of the relationship between anarchism and democracy. They have published a series of essays, including “the flagship text in the series, From Democracy to Freedom.” (Crimethinc 2016) and a supporting essay by Uri Gordon (2016). They are suggesting that local groups discuss their proposed readings and related questions. Their view is that anarchism is not consistent with anycon- cept of democracy. They reject not only capitalist representa- tive democracy but even the direct democracy of libertarian so- cialist communes or workers’ management of industry, accept- ing neither majority rule nor consensus. My contrary view of the matter was expressed in the title of my essay, “Anarchism as Extreme Democracy.” (Price 2009) So I think it may advance the discussion if I express my opinion. I do not intend to go over their “flagship text” point-by-point, but to cover whatI think are the major issues. As they note, “democracy” has been almost the universal good word. It was once despised by the upper classes as mean- ing “mob rule.” Now it is acclaimed in the imperial bourgeois states as it was recently in the “Communist” (totalitarian) Peo- ple’s Democracies, as well as by liberals, conservatives, social democrats, and many (but far from all) anarchists. “Such is the sway of the word democracy that no government or party dares to exist, or believes it can exist, without inscribing this word upon its banner….” (quoted in Draper 1977; 18) This was 16 5 not said recently but in 1849 by the French historian and politi- which Crimethinc favors, as it is for other terms (such as “anar- cian, Guizot. chism” or “socialism”). Unfortunately, Crimethinc has given up In general, “democracy” is defined as the “rule or power of on the struggle over “democracy,” letting the capitalists have the people (the ‘demos’).” In his Politics, Aristotle classically the final interpretation. defined “democracy” as a constitution in which “the free-born That is consistent with the general weakness of Crime- and poor control the government—being at the same time a thinc. They do not write about how the tiny minority which majority.” (quoted in Wood 1995; 220). Of course, Aristotle was wants anarchist revolution can win over the big, (as yet) non- not an anarchist. Nor was he a democrat. revolutionary, majority. Granted, before revolutionary anar- chists really reach the majority, they must reach out to a layer Today’s near-universal acceptance of “democracy” does not of radicalizing and militant activists who are open to becoming show that everyone is using the same meaning. There is a dif- anarchists in the next period. These people could cohere into ference between the view of the officials who send out the po- organizations and networks. But to win them over, they must lice to suppress demonstrations, in order to “maintain democ- be persuaded that revolutionary anarchists have an analysis of racy,” and that of the demonstrators who chant, “This is what the system, a program for changing it, a vision of a better so- democracy looks like!” As Gordon writes, “…Democracy is an ciety, and a way to reach the broad population. This will not ‘essentially contested’ concept—its meaning is itself a political happen if anarchists reject the popular concept “democracy” battleground.” (2016; 1) For such terms, Draper writes, “…their and the revolutionary democratic tradition. It requires a recog- meanings have become pawns in a social and ideological strug- nition that anarchism is democracy without the state. gle. The interpretation of ‘class struggle’ becomes a weapon of class struggle, just as the meaning of ‘democracy’ becomes an arena for the struggle to determine what democracy shall mean.” (Draper 1977; 18) (For a review of the historical strug- References gles over the meaning of “democracy,” see Part II of Democ- racy Against Capitalism, by the late Marxist historian, Ellen Cornell, Andrew (2016). Unruly Equality: U.S. Anarchism in Meiksins Wood [1995].) the 20th Century. Oakland: University of California Press. Unfortunately, Crimethinc has given up on this struggle over Crimethinc (2016). “From Democracy to Freedom.” the meaning of “democracy.” They interpret the “rule or power” we.riseup.net or “government” of the “people” as meaning a state. Therefore Draper, Hal (1977). Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution; Vol. I, they accept the dominant interpretation of “democracy” as re- State and Bureaucracy. NY/London: Monthly Review Press. ferring to the existing bourgeois democracies, as opposed to be- ing a standard by which these states may be judged (and found Gordon, Uri (2016). “Democracy the Patriotic Temptation.” wanting). They recommend that anarchists and other libertar- www.crimethinc.com… ian socialists give up the claim that these states are not really Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital; A democratic. They propose that revolutionaries stop using the Peter Kropotkin Anthology (ed. Iain McKay). Oakland: AK ideal of democracy to fight against the system. They insist that Press. 6 15 simply as “democracies.” And anarchists have supported the the bourgeois theorists are right: democracy means a state— rights of individuals and minorities to freedom in many areas therefore it inevitably means oppression and exploitation. (religion, sex, speech, art, life styles, etc.)—areas which do not Humans have governed themselves for tens of thousands of require collective decision-making. At the same time, almost years in tribal assemblies and village councils, as David Grae- all anarchists have advocated group decision-making, at work ber points out (as they quote him). This demonstrates, he ar- or in communes, using terms such as “self-governing, self- gues, that people are capable of organizing themselves through managing, autogestion, self-rule, self-determination.” What direct democracy, without states (or markets or classes). While they have meant in practice has been usually indistinguishable accepting the anthropological history, Crimethinc rejects Grae- from radical, participatory, democracy. ber’s argument simply by denying that this long history should P.J. Proudhon (the first person to identify himself asan be called “democracy.” It doesn’t fit their definition in which “anarchist”) wrote both negative and positive things about democracy means a state. “democracy.” Iain McKay quotes him as writing, “We want Similarly, they assert, “This is not an argument against dis- the mines, canals, railroads handed over to democratically or- cussions, collectives, assemblies, networks, [or] federations….” ganized workers’ associations…that vast federation of compa- (Crimethinc 2016; 1) Their goal, they write, is “to create mu- nies and societies woven into the common cloth of the demo- tually fulfilling collectivities at each level of society….These cratic and social Republic.” (quoted in McKay’s “Introduction” can take many forms, from housing cooperatives and neigh- to Kropotkin 2014; 8) Again, Proudhon advocated a system of borhood assemblies to international networks.” (44) This may federated communes, with mandated and recallable delegates. sound like a radical conception of democracy to most people, “The imperative mandate, permanent revocability, are the most similar to Cindy Milstein’s program (which they cite) of fed- immediate, undeniable, consequences of the electoral principle. erated, directly-democratic, communities. Not to Crimethinc. It is the inevitable program for all democracy.” (quoted in same; “…When we engage in these practices, if we understand what 9) This was a century before the 1980s and Murray Bookchin. we are doing as democracy—as a form of participatory gov- ernment rather than as a collective practice of freedom—than sooner or later, we will recreate all the problems….” (1) So if Conclusion people even think that what they are doing in a collective is “democratic,” then they will recreate the state, because democ- Crimethinc rejects “democracy” because they have worked racy (as Crimethinc defines it) is a form of “government,” a out a definition which requires democracy to mean domina- term by which they mean “state.” This is argument