CircleA wrote

At least the reply sets them straight.

Note that Malatesta's Between Peasants is one of his earlier texts, from the 1880s. If you look at one of his texts from later in life, say the 1920s post Russian Revolution, he has changed his views on democracy. We can look at At the Cafe, in 1922:

It is not a question of words. It is a question of substance: it is all the difference between democracy, which means the government of the people, and anarchism, which does not mean government, but liberty for each and everyone.

Or Democracy and Anarchy, 1924:

We are not democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships, among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and brutal tyranny and a lying freedom.

So, we declare war on dictatorship and war on democracy.

Neither Democrats, nor Dictators: Anarchists, 1926:

This is why we are neither for a majority nor for a minority government; neither for democracy not for dictatorship. We are for the abolition of the gendarme. We are for the freedom of all and for free agreement, which will be there for all when no one has the means to force others, and all are involved in the good running of society. We are for anarchy...

A Project of Anarchist Organisation, 1927:

It is well known that anarchists do not accept majority government (democracy), any more than they accept government by the few (aristocracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship by one class or party) nor that of one individual (autocracy, monarchy or personal dictatorship)....

In an anarchist organisation the individual members can express any opinion and use any tactic which is not in contradiction with accepted principles and which does not harm the activities of others. In any case a given organisation lasts for as long as the reasons for union remain greater than the reasons for dissent. When they are no longer so, then the organisation is dissolved and makes way for other, more homogeneous groups.

The reason people say Malatesta opposes democracy is because he did eventually come to oppose democracy, due in part to the failures of Anarchist groups involved in the Russian Revolution. If Zoe Baker hasn't read enough of his wider corpus to know that, it does not speak highly of her abilities as either scholar or historian.


CircleA wrote (edited )

That's why there's been a massive increase of liberal views on anarchist subs. The liberals block all the anarchists so the anarchists can't respond to any of it, and then only the liberals can post in any of their threads, all patting each other on the backs and creating a liberal safe space within an anarchist space.

The only way to combat is is for the mods to ban all the liberals so they can't keep creating these liberal bubbles.


CircleA wrote (edited )

The prisons, the police, the stalin-esque personality cult, the punitive laws, the demolishing of Arab houses, the slumlords, the state capitalism, the one party central government, the sacrificial/martyr mentality, the vanguard, the forced celibacy for women, the executions... What's your favorite part of Rojava's government, democrat?