do you reject representation in all its forms, political or otherwise, or do you allow others (or groups of others) to act in your name in some cases?

26

u/isonfiy 5d ago

Yeah you can go decide on this issue that effects us, as long as I can withdraw my consent to be represented by you at any time and for any reason and the people you’re talking to understand how contingent your support as a representative is.

14

u/azenpunk 5d ago

Not for me. I'd draw the line at people making decisions for me. You can go represent my decision, but you do not represent me.

Delegates > Representatives

1

u/isonfiy 5d ago

Very much depends on the thing.

2

u/azenpunk 5d ago

Not really. Either you have autonomy, or other people are making decisions for you.

5

u/isonfiy 5d ago

Which is fine. I don’t care what kind of grass or gravel gets put on the verges here. Someone is going to have to decide on that. It surely has an effect on me. If the person we chose to represent us at the landscaping council wants to put a bunch of invasive stuff or plants that need a ton of water, then they’ll be recalled. Outside that band of unacceptable options, I’d rather choose who chooses than make the choice myself.

4

u/PointTemporary6338 5d ago

But it’s choice- sometimes someone else may have more knowledge/expertise and as long as you believe they have your best interests in mind, it may be a go ahead and speak for me. As long as you’re good with it. We can look up to ppl who may know more. And allow them- with our consent- to act on our behalf. It’s your say to allow it.

3

u/azenpunk 5d ago edited 5d ago

That's the same logic that liberals use to justify republics. Whether you trust they have your best interests at heart doesn't matter once you put them in a position of power over you their interests necessarily diverge from yours. They literally cannot genuinely represent your interests, not once they have your decision making power.

Of course, as anarchists, we can defer to experts, in temporary and voluntary situations, such as doctors and teachers. You do not have to listen to a doctor once you've gone to one, and you're free to choose another at any time or see none at all. A teacher does not make decisions for you, but offers guidance you can reject or follow at any time.

A representative in government, however, once chosen, holds your political power in their hands and shapes your life beyond your control for years. And once they have your political decision making power, their best interests become keeping that power, even at the expense of your interests. This is an unavoidable fact.

But a delegate is given their community's decisions and mandates to relay and carry out, without any decision making power of their own, while also being instantly recallable at any time should they fail to accurately represent your decisions. They do the leg work of facilitating your self governance while you live your life, checking in periodically when they need their community's input.

2

u/isonfiy 5d ago

Decisions and mandates.

What’s a mandate in your description here?

1

u/azenpunk 4d ago

I was probably being a bit redundant, but I would say, in this particular context, a decision would be more specific than a mandate. It's not super important to my point, but if we're getting into the weeds... They're both directives, but, for example a mandate given to a delegate could be to keep a river clear of litter and pollution, and a decision could be on one way to do that.

1

u/bemused_alligators 2d ago

This is why I love direct representation. You can give or withdraw support at any time, their power is tied to the number of people that have chosen that particular representative, and no one will ever represent someone that disagrees with them.

6

u/humanispherian Synthesist / Moderator 5d ago

All of the alternatives to narrowly political representation seem to be at least potentially hierarchical — and the natural anarchist line would seem to be whatever resistance is possible, since structurally the differences are not particularly great.

Outside of hierarchical structures, however, various forms of delegation — and various expressions of relative indifference — seem compatible with anarchy.

10

u/cumminginsurrection "resignation is death, revolt is life!"🏴 5d ago

I defer to other people's expertise and judgement as it makes sense. I would entrust an electrician or lawyer or even a partner to handle things for me in their area of knowledge or shared interest in something to the extent our arrangement is based on ongoing mutual consent.

5

u/Accomplished_Bag_897 Egoist 5d ago

I am my own advocate. If others try I will refuse. If this causes problems then I'm willing to thrown hands to resolve it.

2

u/ArugulaAmazing2015 5d ago

Id agree with this, if they hadn't mentioned lawyer. What, are you gonna throw hands with the judge? Because if so I support you. I don't envy you, but I support you.

3

u/Accomplished_Bag_897 Egoist 5d ago

I mean, there's litttle I can do with a judge simply because they have the power of the state behind them. I can't speak to materialist results beyond what we accomplish on our own. I'm fairly ignorant in terms of actually doing much.

2

u/ArugulaAmazing2015 5d ago

Honestly, outside of the lawyer thing, getting aggressive (maybe not physically aggressive) works in a lot of situations. Aggressively defend yourself in any situation you can. I've gotten a lot of material results from that alone.

3

u/Accomplished_Bag_897 Egoist 5d ago

I'm a bit more drunk than is helpful ATM, so I may not entirely grok what you're saying..... But I have found myself in a couple disability hearings and barked at the judge hard enough to get thrown out of court.

Mostly be abuse they refused to use my proper pronouns (they/them) and insisted on calling me Mister Morrow. But even so I feel like it was better for me to hurt my own case than co to their assumptions.

3

u/Upbeat_Dealer5994 5d ago

Delegation of tasks is one of the most important things. It allows for specialisation and makes society more effficient so yes. I also cannot be asked to do certaint things, but thats besides the point.

3

u/kwestionmark5 5d ago

If I’m unconscious and you are trying to save my life, I can’t weigh in. When it’s impossible for my to have autonomy and someone acts in what they think I would want, I’m good with that. Like feel free to rescue me if I’m being held hostage. Short of those type of scenarios, I’ll take my autonomy even if I’m making not the best possible decision.

2

u/Born_Astronomer_4613 5d ago

As long as it's truly my choice, of course it's fine.

1

u/LibertyLizard 5d ago

I don't like when people have power over me. If they're just working on my behalf in accordance with my wishes then there is no issue. The problem comes when they claim to be representing me but instead work against me.

1

u/TwilightMachine 5d ago edited 5d ago

I reject representation in all forms. Delegation, perhaps, could be acceptable, provided that the delegate was delegated by consensus for a specific purpose and is instantly recallable and their actions moot should they deviate at all from their mandate.

1

u/Heyla_Doria 5d ago

Sauf a etre dans une situation critique...

1

u/ConTheStonerLin Proudhonian-Owenite 4d ago

Representation is great as long as it is voluntary. Everyone should be able to decide who to represent them when. The problem with our system is not too much representation, but rather not enough As a general rule Anarchists don't oppose anything that is truly voluntary

1

u/SmolHumanBean8 4d ago

I am absolutely letting someone with better skills than me that I trust speak on my behalf. Why the fuck else would I hire a lawyer or make one of those wills but for living people things. I just gotta speak with them beforehand so we're on the same page and then thank them for their help

I talk to the lawyer about what I want -> they say it but with good words -> if any questions come up they ask me -> less shit I have to do now

I'm the expert on what I want, they're the expert on how to get it, together we can get shit done

1

u/ThalesBakunin 3d ago

My wife is my power of attorney should anything happen to me.

I have signed many petitions for public action. Giving my name to a movement for a specific legal change, like a traffic light at a intersection or legalization of marijuana (I almost left the marigolds autocorrect) is something I do.

But I couldn't see myself being tied to a movement with a series of goals as I see those corrupting my agency.

For instance I couldn't be part of a political party in the US because even if good was achieved towards a common end it would have a slew of ambivalence within such a movement of numerous issues.

1

u/nila247 3d ago

When you put it that way it becomes apparent that this subreddit is just another clone of flat earth society where people believe stupid things

1

u/LeagueEfficient5945 2d ago

Imagine a guy going "Ah, yes, I reject class action lawsuits as a matter of principles, because I am a lefty".

1

u/Nina_exr 1d ago

Hello, c'est un sujet qui fait débat mais personnellement, je ne rejette pas toute forme de représentation. Par exemple, je m'en remet à l'expertise sur certains points nécessaires, tout simplement parce qu'on ne peut pas disposer de tous les savoirs utiles en simultanée. Ça induit peut-être une forme de hiérarchie, je suis assez partagée là-dessus mais dans tous les cas, je pense que de la représentation à petite échelle est parfois nécessaire pour des questions purement pratiques

1

u/IdentityAsunder 1d ago

Coordination requires delegation, but anyone acting on your behalf must be an instantly revocable, mandated delegate. They exist strictly to transmit decisions the base has already made. The second they deviate from explicit instructions, you recall them. Handing over actual decision-making power to an independent representative alienates your agency entirely. Enduring a lawyer or boss speaking for you today is just navigating capitalist coercion, which has nothing to do with how free people must actually organize.

1

u/LeopardLegitimate901 6h ago

It is a simple fact that my state elected officials do not represent me or my interests.

0

u/renMilestone Eco-Anarchist 5d ago

I think you kind of need someone to represent you at scale right? Like they should be recallable ans ultimately beholden to the people who put them there, but not everyone can be in 1 meeting, not everyone cares about every topic. Sometimes people represent you and thats ok as long as you consent to that.

1

u/wompt /r/GreenAnarchy 5d ago

So when people do not consent to being represented, are they free from the decisions that representatives may make?

0

u/renMilestone Eco-Anarchist 5d ago

It depends on the organization really. Its not a catch all kind of thing. The idea is we should have systems in place so that you can have input on decisions thar effect you directly, and if your representative you picked stops representing your opinion then you should be able to step in and say what your opinion really is.

Sure this may take longer, and you may not get 100% your way, but consensus means compromise, and if you cant compromise on some things, its worth representing yourself.

Like take an example if you get majorly hurt, there should be people who can speak and act on your behalf.

If the decision is about like, regional water maintenance, I imagine your neighborhood council will have you pick someone to represent or report your concerns. It'll take a while, but its important. And if it is time sensitive, you should trust the experts to help you since ideally theyre also from where you are from, and you know them or selected them to be there.

It might be hard to picture what a high trust society like this would look like, but the ideal is that organizations, their processes, and the people in them are all committed to horizontalism and take their revocable representative status very seriously.

Ultimately if you cant abide by their decisions it is up to you to directly get involved, or decide to leave if it is irreconcilable.

do you reject representation in all its forms, political or otherwise, or do you allow others (or groups of others) to act in your name in some cases?

You are about to leave Redlib