Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ziq wrote (edited )

Anarchy is at odds with democracy. Democracy gives authority to the majority of the voting population. Anarchy rejects authority and certainly it rejects the domination of majority groups over minority groups. Anarchy is about autonomy and the dismantling of authority, democracy ignores autonomy in favor of the collective will of a dominant group and it is the full embodiment of authority - which is why it's used to maintain the status quo all over the world today.

w/democracy

Liberalism is free market capitalism. Anarchists are fiercely opposed to all forms of domination, and free market capitalism is the major form of domination and exploitation in the world today.

EDIT: Just realized this is a parody forum.

3

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

I think that Neo-Liberalism is what you mean by free-market Capital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Participatory democracy was practiced by nearly all of the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War

So? They also murdered nuns democratically.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

I'm not trying to create a society. I'm not a dictator.

I am kind of opposed to being against democracy in general.

address my points made in w/democracy and/or the further reading linked at the bottom. there's nothing anarchist about democracy. democracy is a clear form of collective authority even in its 'pure' forms.

Participatory democracy may have yet to approach any form of utopian society, but, it is the best example of a worthwhile democratic project that I can think of.

define 'worthwhile'. How has participatory democracy fostered anarchy?

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote (edited )

How is society equivalent to dictatorship?

How could I 'create a society' and then keep that society from breaking up without exercising massive authority? Without dictating to others in order to maintain my totalitarian construct?

Should I ask what kind of community you are trying to create?

None?

Democracy exists due to a need to resolve conflicts.

Democracy exists to enable rulers to maintain power hierarchies and absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

A truly democratic project necessarily involves its own abolition eventually.

Sounds a lot like the tankie 'withering away' of the state that never actually happens and instead results in more bureaucracy and more exploitation.

If the abolition of the State involves my being subject to the brute force of anarchic violence

You're basically saying you want law and order. That you don't trust people to manage themselves and think they need to be policed by a state construct.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

The democratic project has been distorted so as to secure power since its inception, but, I really don't think that people should be opposed to democracy in general.

If something has only ever resulted in oppression every time its been done, why would you keep doing it?

The "withering away of the state" is not necessarily a Marxist-Leninist concept. It was developed by Engels.

Fuck Engels too; that white supremacist piece of shit.

I don't think that a participatory democratic project does or should involve the State.

States can have a lot of faces. Direct majority voter rule is still a state; just in a new form.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

I actually think that the concept can be radically interpreted in the favor of Anarchist praxis.

A "temporary' state..?

How should communities decide upon matters in the absence of democracy?

w/democracy

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

ziq wrote (edited )

It does address it or I wouldn't have linked you to it. Now you're just asking me to repeat myself. Here:

"Instead of a large group laboring to make democracy work so they can agree on a course of action, it would be far more productive for smaller groups made up of people with shared interests to splinter off and co-operate to follow their own plans that require no compromise because their interests are already aligned."

I don't know how to make my perspective clearer than that.

you could always just call me a "tankie"

When did I call you a tankie? I just pointed out your argument was no different than the 'withering away of the state' promise.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote

How are the smaller groups to come to decisions

By talking to each other.

2