>In the short term, such laissez-faire activism can look spectacular on TV
>but leaves little chance to building the long-term strategy it takes to
>challenge corporate-backed state power. I recognize that this is the core
>political disagreement between socialists and anarchists, in that
socialists
>generally believe that majority votes should be binding and that it takes
>broad-based organization to challenge power.
-The Boleheviks reacted to the election of soviets with a non-Bolshevik -majority by dissolving them, they reacted to a 15,000 - 3 vote in -kronstadt in 1921 with war. I don't know if you count these -as 'socialists' but if you do then things are more -complex they you imply above.
No, I don't really count the Bolsheviks as socialists because they had little respect for democracy, except as opportunists.
>In reality most anarchists are not against majority votes, we
>are against the idea that in all circumstances the minority
>are required to obey the majority. This might sound controversal
>but on issues like racism and abortion rights many on the left
>would agree with this.
Which is a case where the exception swallows the rule. And even in such cases, if the law has no meaning, then anti-racism or anti-sexism has little meaning, since much of it operates outside the law itself. Racists and sexists themselves have historically been the ones arguing against the majority binding them- whether in the name of "states rights", "private association" or "free contract." Anti-racist and anti-sexist struggles have been all about forcing such racists and sexists to abide by the majority rules that banned their operation.
>And in the case of the demonstrations this concept of majority
>and minority is pretty meaningless _except_ where there is
>a physical mass assembly in advance of the protest.
Of course, majority rule in mass action is always more complicated. But your argument that a mass assembly makes things clearer ignores any idea of representative democracy, where those without the resources to be present might deserve a voice through their reps. I am always amazed at these kinds of events that many anarchist types think a single person should have the same vote as a person elected to represent thousands, even millions of people or workers.
You note:
>What is
>needed is coherent anarchist organisation(s) which organisea
>millions of members on a continental wide basis. The
>current sutructure of the US anarchist movement has to
>radically change if it is to build this.
And if it did, it would have the democratic weight to contest tactics by the far larger, more representative mass groups like unions and environmental groups that also participate. But most of the anarchists who show up represent no one but themselves and are still not a majority of participants. Yet they still don't respect the (more) democratically agreed to tactics of the majority.
-- Nathan Newman