Rich-White-centrism… sorry I mean democracy… is proven not to work by a class of kindergarten kids.
PORT ST. LUCIE — Melissa Barton said she is considering legal action after her son’s kindergarten teacher led his classmates to vote him out of class.
After each classmate was allowed to say what they didn’t like about Barton’s 5-year-old son, Alex, his Morningside Elementary teacher Wendy Portillo said they were going to take a vote, Barton said.
By a 14 to 2 margin, the students voted Alex — who is in the process of being diagnosed with autism — out of the class.
…
Steele said the boy had been sent to the principal’s office because of disciplinary issues. When he returned, Portillo made him go to the front of the room as a form of punishment, she said.
I find it interesting that this story displays all the usual shortcomings of democracy: the process is guided by the ruling class from start to finish, you have the choices they give you, voting as mob rule, and the oppression of the destitute and voiceless that democracy inevitably entails.
All in a kindergarten!
The Prime Directive 
In a way, maybe it does. It works the way they intended for it all along.
Remember, you’ve got another failed aspect of democracy: the leader overturned the whole thing at the end.
If those kids were a little older, they might have learned something good. Unfortunately, they’re probably scarred for life.
When the process is guided by a ruler like that, of course it is more prone to fail. Democracy must come from the bottom up, not from the top down.
I honestly don’t see the alternative, Francois. What is a worker in a worker cooperative refuses to do any work? Should the other worker-owners let him continue, or should they vote to fire him/her? There has to be some form of decision-making among groups, and democracy is the best way. Keep it voluntary, participatory, decentralized, and acephalous/nonhierarchic, and it’s the best form of decision-making there is.
*What if
“Democracy must come from the bottom up, not from the top down.”
Democracy must not come from anywhere. It must be smashed.
“I honestly don’t see the alternative, Francois.”
The only free alternative is the market. Voluntary cooperation. Consensus. Agreements. Contracts.
“What is a worker in a worker cooperative refuses to do any work? Should the other worker-owners let him continue, or should they vote to fire him/her?”
That’s their decision. They should decide how they want to make that decision- but ideally they should do it by consensus or by appointing someone to make those decisions for them.
“There has to be some form of decision-making among groups, and democracy is the best way.”
Bullshit.
When do YOU use democracy in your daily life?
I NEVER do. Neither does anyone I know.
If mob rule and decision by indoctrinated beliefs is the best form of decision-making, we’re fucked big time, because democracy is a total failure. Fortunately, it’s not.
I recommend you read these entries of mine on Rich-White-centrism… I mean democracy:
It’s interesting that what’s displayed later, in the outside world, is often first experienced and introduced within the school yard.
I don’t see voluntary democracy as incompatible with a free society. Democracy is only mob rule in its statist forms, where the minority is coerced to obey the majority, even if they want to leave the association. That’s why it’s so important that the association is voluntary.
Let’s look at a worker cooperative as a model of how decisions should be made. You’ve suggested consensus and delegation of power to appointees. At first glance, consensus seems ideal and the method which conforms best to the core tenets of anarchism. However, it has its problems as well. Besides for its impracticality, it sometimes creates situations in which people are psychologically (and even physically) coerced into accepting the majority opinion. At least with democracy, dissenters are less likely to be pressured to be silent, as decisions can still be made when someone disagrees. In this respect, democracy promotes dissent and free discussion more than consensus.
I’ve observed this in real life too; I haven’t just read the Anarchist FAQ and thought about it from the ivory tower. Before I was an anarchist, I was a member of my school’s College Democrats. It was a fairly small group, and we made our decisions by consensus. This wasn’t actually a rule or anything; the group’s coby-laws actually called for direct democracy as the “official” means of decision-making. But de facto, we used consensus decision-making. Unfortunately, it turned out that people were afraid to express dissent. It turned out that those who were the most charismatic and well-spoken pretty much always got their way, even if the majority disagreed with them. A sort of “ruling class” developed, composed of these few individuals were were adept at silencing dissent.
Of course, democracy is vulnerable to this too. This College Dems group was “officially” democratic, after all. However, I think the example still highlights some of the possible problems with consensus decision-making.
As for appointing people to make decisions for you, that’s even worse. As history clearly demonstrates, it leads to consolidation of power into the hands of those making decisions. You seemed to admit that in that last post of yours, “Democracy: Social Organization for Dummies.” The Soviet Union was ruled by the Party hierarchs and for the Party hierarchs. The United States is ruled by corporate interests and for corporate interests. Few people put into a position of power will refrain from abusing it; it’s just human nature.
It seems to me like a lot of what you criticized in those other posts is a) non-voluntary democracy, and b) centralized, representative “democracy”. I agree that the representative “democracy” that we see today is just a choice between which pre-selected rich white men will rule us (although sometimes a rich white woman and a slightly less rich black man are thrown into the mix.)
“It seems to me like a lot of what you criticized in those other posts is a) non-voluntary democracy”
Headdesk.
“I don’t see voluntary democracy as incompatible with a free society.”
“It seems to me like a lot of what you criticized in those other posts is a) non-voluntary democracy”
I’m sorry, but I am not going to answer your whole comment because this is just too much. You are dramatically, completely, hopelessly confused, and this is the root of all your errors. There is NO SUCH THING as “voluntary democracy.” All democracies are founded on the principle of violence, because no democracy can exist without violent repression of any secession or desire to leave the group.
Democracy by definition is the rule by aggregates not individuals. It is NOT a rule of the individual. Democracy is by definition confrontational and anti-dialogue. It is NOT a means by which dissent can be expressed and developed.
I’m sorry, but you are going to have to go past the beliefs and look at reality. You need to topple that idol in your mind.
That is simply not what I or any other anarchist who supports democracy means when we say “democracy.” We mean workers’ self-management. That sort of thing. I’m sure you’ve read the Anarchist FAQ: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca211
Stop attacking straw men, Francois. We’re not talking about statist democracy, in which members are not allowed to leave the association. We’re talking democracy in associations where one may freely disassociate at any time.
Then you are talking about something that has never existed, and cannot exist. Democracy cannot exist in a voluntary manner because it exacerbates dissent, fosters confrontation, dries up discourse, and tears the system apart.
Sure, it has. Ever read Harold Barclay’s “People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy”? Many of the anarchic societies he describes have used some form of voluntary, democratic decision-making.
Belinsky, you are talking to the wrong person: I actually own that book. If you want to point me to what specific example you are talking about, I’ll be happy to re-read it…
thats for sure, brother