Deutschmania wrote:
Well, hierarchical authority would be top down, and typically form a pyramid shaped structure , while under democratic confederalism authority would be characterized by grassroots democracy.
Okay, thanks.
I can appreciate that the proletariat's 'vehicle' would have to be internally consistent and move decisively, hence democratic centralism, but the following 'grassroots democracy' sounds more like a *post*-capitalist, post-democratic-centralism kind of societal option, because it's about 'devolving' authority, to localism.
Grassroots democracy is a tendency towards designing political processes that shift as much decision-making authority as practical to the organization's lowest geographic or social level of organization.[1][2]
Grassroots organizations can have a variety of structures; depending on the type of organization and what the members want. These can be non-structured and non-hierarchical organizations that are run by all members, or by whichever member wishes to do something.[3]
To cite a specific hypothetical example, a national grassroots organization would place as much decision-making power as possible in the hands of local chapters or common members instead of the head office.
DM, have you ever considered that the conventional bourgeois 'executive office' might conceivably *not* be the best form of political organization -- ?
It has all of the overhead of entity-group *organization* -- keeping that cohesiveness.
I tend to think of the grassroots / workers co-op / workplace as being a *necessary* step, to collectivize each and every workplace as its 'geographical' / workplace own, but I think we *both* know the limits of anarchism in that it's inescapably *localist*, especially for its approach to social production / the material world.
[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram
---
Deutschmania wrote:
This helps to ensure mutual accountability between the individual and the community. As it relates to anarchism, I have found that it all comes down to semantics. Is a libertarian municipality a free association, or is it merely a city state ? P.S. The only thing I would add to the points made by @Unthinking Majority is that , from a Marxist standpoint, this is why it would be necessary for there to be a new humanity, with socialist values and manners, before the civil society can eventually suitably advance into free communism , from the preliminary transitionary worker state, once the worldwide public is ready and willing to abide by the community standards of social etiquette . Until then, according to Marxist-Leninist theory, there must be democratic centralism. Since I already posted videos from Non-Compete, explaining what an anarchist society might look like, regarding societal structure, here is a video from his wife, the Vietnamese Communist Luna Oi, explaining what democratic centralism is, and how it functions, both in terms of democracy and centralization interrelationally. https:// m.youtube.com/watch?v=4YVcQe4wceY
I'll get to the video, but in the meantime I'd just like to introduce my own *post-capitalist* conception -- since there would be no *private* interests, there would be no 'turf' to 'manage', as organizationally, and nothing would be *fixed* socially-organizationally, as for unchanging turf, territory, capital, properties, personnel, infrastructure, productive assets, or natural resources.
I mean to say that social production could then be entirely *per-item*, and all necessary social production supply chains would collectively self-organize at whatever geographic scales necessary on the basis of the *item* / product, and not according to arbitrary (power-based) turf-type standing organizations.
Emergent Central Planning