Democracy was blasted in two earlier posts (here and here). Is there a better way? Democracy will always have the ills cited in those earlier posts, with perhaps the exception of the information problem, but nonetheless it is not as though democracy is bad as noted earlier either, just not really democratic as democracy stops with the vote, after this point, as Proudhon noted, "the anti-democratic work begins."
When I first discovered anarchism I had lots of misconceptions (I'm sure I'm probably still harboring a few depending on which variety of anarchist you ask). One thing (of many things) I had trouble conceptualizing was where action and change would cross consensus and democracy. Programming myself to hate government blinded me to the viability of democracy when consensus is not practical, as well as the difference between state and government, or perhaps state and *governance.*
The Ostrom's taught me a great deal about how to successfully manage commons. In a similar fashion much of the talk below taught me how to see democracy a little differently Like Ostrom's wisdom, Cindy Milstein, and Stephen Shalom made me feel better about consensus and 'democracy'.
No comments:
Post a Comment