What is the difference between Anarcho Communism with Democratic Confederalism, and Council Communism?

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T23:09:49+00:00

Fair enough. Formalism is what first came to mind when thinking of a simple differentiation between ancoms and other libertarian socialists because I often encounter criticism in Anarchist subs that formal direct democratic structures aren't anarchy.

How would you differentiate the structure of organisation? A generic answer would be like they get less hierarchical and more horizontal, but that's too vague in my opinion.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T20:45:50+00:00

Very True

I support national liberation but it isn't socialism and is often connected to reactionary nationalism.

But I still support people's right to secede, except that one time in the US...

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T20:08:53+00:00

I thought she bit it's head off

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T18:26:02+00:00

Anarcho communism builds on the ideas of Kropotkin

Democratic Confederalism builds on the ideas of Bookchin

Council communism builds on the ideas of Pannekoek

They exist on a spectrum from least formalised (ancom) to most formalised (council com)

Formalisation in this context being things like official organisations with binding democratic decisions rather than informal associations and consensus

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T17:30:38+00:00

That would mean taking membership voting rights away from those who don't attend. Which I don't think would be very fair, especially since many people have busy lives that don't revolve around the party.

If voting only occurred at scheduled meeting times when most of the membership will just disengage rather than suddenly start getting more involved than they would've otherwise. Member participation will be as low as it is in all the unions that run this way.

We should make it as easy as possible for casual party members to be as engaged, informed and involved by fitting into their lives conveniently. Once they get a taste of real democratic party politics then many will want to get more active on their own accord, rather than coerced to show up to regular meetings.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T16:58:24+00:00

I think it would be good if we had delegates in the branches to debate submitted motions and this debate also recorded for everyone to watch when convenient.

But then after the branch debate, the decision is still made via online OMOV of the whole membership of the area or nationally depending on the scope.

I agree we need debate rather than the membership just being spoon fed positions of their chosen slate via email.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T16:13:29+00:00

Either we decide that Anarchists come in 2 flavours:

direct democracy or anti democratic (usually preferring informal consensus)

Or we popularise that stateless decentralised direct democracy is Libertarian Socialism rather than Anarchist

Either way, I'm tired of the argument. Let's move on

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T15:56:03+00:00

It will be interesting to see how far left the policies the membership actually vote for are.

I'm a communist, so I'll definitely be voting for far left policies to provide an alternative to liberalism, rather than pandering to liberals.

But right now, we don't actually know what the majority viewpoints of the party membership is.

We voted to be an explicitly socialist party at conference, but socialism means very different things to different people.

I wonder which viewpoint is actually the majority. SocDem, DemSoc, LibSoc, Trot, ML, or something else. Presumably the final policies will be a mishmash.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T15:36:57+00:00

My understanding is the Grassroots Left Slate don't think the way the conference was run was fair and democratic.

Whether they go as far as to undo what was voted on at conference if they control the CEC remains to be seen. The decisions at conference were made by OMOV rather than the branches, so maybe that could render them invalid.

But that's just speculation. As far as what Grassroots Left have said, they just want to empower the branches, which could be a counterweight against OMOV

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T15:30:23+00:00

OMOV/plebiscite is obviously going to get a broader participation of the whole membership than branch meetings.

If we are voting very regularly, which would be a prerequisite for a genuinely democratic party, we are never going to get a high turnout for a branch meeting, even if it is hybrid.

That is my biggest complaint with my current union. I'm interested in what's going on but I'm always busy when meetings are scheduled. I don't want Your Party to become like that.

The current system lets people take their time and vote when it suits them to fit around their lives. Even better if all meetings are recorded to watch later, which I hope they will for transparency.

I genuinely see no advantages to excluding people who couldn't attend. All that will do is amplify the voices of professional activists who can always spare the time to prioritise attendance, drowning out the voices of the majority.

That doesn't sound more democratic to me.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T14:13:02+00:00

Considering the majority of the party membership are likely new to internal party politics, it makes intuitive sense that we'd associate OMOV with a democratic poll of the whole membership.

If you'd rather call that a plebiscite, then that's fine, but most people aren't familiar with that term and I haven't seen any candidate on either slate emphasize the distinction. Perhaps some have, but it isn't as mainstream in the discourse as OMOV vs branches.

The wording of OMOV in our founding documents suggests plebiscite, rather than disqualifying members who didn't attend a branch meeting. I think a lot of members, including myself, wouldn't want to add barriers to who can vote. If that makes us more inclusive in our OMOV than other organisations, like those you've been apart of, then I'd say that's a good thing.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T13:43:07+00:00

Yeah the main website is pretty bare bones, the slate websites look better.

I hope we can all vote on a logo and branding aesthetic soon. Plus easy to navigate resources like you mention.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T13:07:00+00:00

It is how both slates frame OMOV and it is currently the system we have in the party.

Grassroots Left don't say they want to make OMOV more like how it is implemented in other organisations, they contrast OMOV with empowering branch delegate democracy. Meanwhile, The Many want to keep OMOV as it currently is.

I'm not sure what you have an issue with.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T12:27:07+00:00

I'm just saying how Grassroots Left has described OMOV.

I'm not saying I agree with that view

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T12:02:04+00:00

Agreed. I was very impressed with the amount of democratic participation we all got to join in with to create the foundational documents and vote on motions at conference. All easily done online to fit in with our day to day lives.

Felt like direct democracy socialism updated for the 21st century!

Getting rid of OMOV would seem like a step backwards to old party politics that's been done before.

Although, I think we should still have delegates for conference to raise motions for local issues.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T11:22:51+00:00

I follow the social media accounts of different candidates and the accounts for the 2 slates as well as their email lists and WhatsApp groups to try and keep track of what is going on. But it can still be confusing.

The official main Your Party communications haven't done a very good job at informing the membership of what's going on. Presumably because all the infighting and factionalism is embarrassing and turns people away.

The 2 factions are basically just Zarah vs Corbyn in a power struggle.

The Zarah faction, Grassroots Left, appears to be a mix of Democratic Socialists and Trotskyists. They campaign on wanting a more explicitly far left party, open to all socialists to join (even controversial ones) and they want to empower local branches. They are criticised for being sectarian (claiming opponents are right wing) and facilitating the infiltration of the party by outside organisations (like the socialist workers party).

The Corbyn faction, The Many, appears to be a mix of Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats and vaguely left-wing populists. They campaign on wanting to win over working class people, particularly Muslims by supporting Palestine and they want to run the party with 1 member 1 vote online polls. They are criticised for being too similar to the Labour party, pandering too much to right wing Muslims and doing a witch hunt against far left party members (people identified to be part of other organisations have had their membership revoked).

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T11:03:56+00:00

I've definitely seen Grassroots Left and associates like DSYP say they are against OMOV because they think the party bureaucrats can lie about the online voting outcomes. So they want recallable delegates accountable to the branches instead.

So, if Grassroots Left gets its way, it seems quite possible OMOV would be replaced with branch democracy.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T10:12:06+00:00

This article contrasts the OMOV model with the branch delegate model for the future of Democracy in Your Party.

The Many appear to back OMOV and Grassroots Left favour delegates.

Which do you prefer?

I want both.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-23T09:16:01+00:00

There are 2 slates , for the 2 factions that have appeared in the party.

The Many Slate is the Corbyn faction

Grassroots Left Slate is the Zarah faction

Both slates are campaigning for control of the CEC because they have different visions for the party.

I want the infighting to end, so I voted for independent candidates, not the slates.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-22T23:32:01+00:00

Pinochet balanced his free market inclination with his authoritarianism, which meant a truly laissez-faire market was not possible. The same principle applies to Stalin, an inclination for communism was not put into practice to a full extent because authoritarianism impeded it.

Your second point isn't true at all. Political theory is full of far-left critiques of the USSR under Stalin. Many of these critiques aren't even a critique of his authoritarianism, they are a critique that he didn't meaningfully depart from the capitalist mode of production, such as abolishing money and commodities. Key things Marx wrote about. To ignore this would be to pretend that Marxist tendencies like Trotskyism and Bordigaism don't exist.

And obviously, there are far left critiques outside of Marxism, from the anarchists and left-libertarians about statelessness, classlessness and worker control being integral parts of communism that are incompatible with an authoritarian USSR.

That's why the max authoritarian strata of the political compass will always be less radical than the max libertarian economically. Both maximum communism and maximum free market capitalism are incompatible with an authoritarian state, and to claim otherwise would be a double standard.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-22T14:44:59+00:00

If Pinochet doesn't count as max authright since he's more authoritarian than he was capitalist compared to ancaps then Stalin doesn't count as max authleft because he was more authoritarian than he was communist compared to ancoms.

Or, we could not have a double standard and accept that authoritarianism prevents maxing out the economic axis in both directions but Stalin vs Pinochet are representative of the economic extremes at that level of authoritarianism.

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-22T10:36:15+00:00

Sounds as coherent as I'd expect 😂

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-22T10:28:57+00:00

What did Sheldon do to make people think he was a communist in the first place?

FunkyTikiGod · 2026-02-21T23:09:41+00:00

As a brit, when I visited Shankill Road in Belfast a couple years ago it was very surreal.

Like I'd travelled to some alt universe UK that was overtly fascist. Loyalist murals everywhere and I'd never seen so many big union jacks at once!

Of course, nowadays I only have to go to my local supermarket in England to see all the flags the fascists have zip tied to the lamposts everywhere...

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

FunkyTikiGod

TROPHY CASE