Chuck0 wrote:
> but anarchists conducts their affairs in what
> could be described as the most "democratic" way. They strive for
> egalitarian meetings, frequently use consensus, and discourage the
> emergence of any kind of leadership.
Anarchism (whether so named or not) is very often the political tendency to which people adhere as they move leftward. And at early stages of a mass movement (which we hope but do not know we now find ourselves in) anarchists and socialists can (usually) get along fairly well. At one SDS convention they flew both the black flag and the red flag at the podium.
And of course it is relations between socialists and anarchists in the present, not their long range differences, that count, or at least I think that should be the concern of marxists. And the question that focus poses is whether, in coalitions, anarchists will accept the democratic decisions of the coalition. The description of democracy offered by ChuckO would discuss that anarchists of his tendency would not accept democratic decision making in a coalition, because in a coalition (especially large unwieldy ones such as are probably necessary for the near future) decision making cannot be by consensus. In fact decision making in a coalition more resembles diplomacy than even a bourgeois legislature. No one *ever* gets all (or even most) of what they *want* in a coalition. Will anarchists accept that fact?
Carrol
P.S. Actually, what ChuckO describes as democracy resembles most unorganized social relations in a high school, and you have an arbitrary leadership exercised unofficially by those who are most personable -- usually those whose shirts fit best.