How do tankies justify the lack of democracy in dictatorship?

Literally a Jewess who rode a Nazi's dick before and (likely after) the war.

You can take that high priestess of Zionist liberalism and Athenian fetishism and put her in the trash where she belongs.

Meant for

Point being that you would still not be rejecting liberal ideas of democracy, and that democracy itself should be classified itself within capitalism as an intensely liberal democracy by definition (liberalism itself born from human attempts at hiding the ugliness of capital), because it seeks to mend contradictions with another contradiction, instead of introducing an entirely new contradiction over the others.

You're incapable of addressing points without projecting or only half-answering to things without trying to troll. Do you honestly think we're gonna get anywhere ITT by entertaining this poor cycle of discourse?

Sigh… was inevitable. Kindly step this way,

What of substance was there in that post? All I saw was Hoxhaist screeching.

The goal of communism isn't democracy. The goal of communism is to abolish all governments, including democratic ones

Democracy is an idea older then liberalism and capitalism, user. You act as if collective decision making is somehow a bad thing.

A lot, if you had discarded Hoxhaist screeching. You didn't even address my post's substance at all before beelining for projection.

In the sense that democracy is synonymous with government serving to mediate the law of value's domination of society, yes, but also that communism would represent a kind of proletarian democracy that in no way resembles bourgeois democracy and thus can arguably not really be called that.

Absolutely, but it is crucially an idea invented under not just a slave society, but under a slave society for the purpose of managing this slave society's patrician class more efficiently; with less roughness in its process of enunciation within its ranks.

Absolutely not, and this is not inherently synonymous with democracy, or more importantly what democracy is defined as and how it verily functions depending on society's material base and economic relations.

The goal of communism is communal control over production by emancipated individuals, which negates a state, doesn't mean they're not pure demos at this stage.

Your point was a breathless proclamation absolute equivalency of respective crimes, as if I was making a Black Book type claim and not just mocking technocratic """socialism""". And if it's just as bad anyway but you have to go full retard to get there, what's the point?

It's an idea even older then athens. Since the inception of cities you've had popular assemblies. This is more of an issue of pedantry then of substance.

furthermore, I don't see how a one party state is a method of collective decision making and not a method of domination over those not within the party.

...

I'm glad you're using that NazBol flag so I can just ignore your effortless trolling, but not glad that I unironically engaged with disingenuity despite knowing better. Piss off, lad.

You are both acting like the logical result of "doing while not doing you are doing it" is equivalent with such tacit concepts as democracy, which nonetheless outlines a very clear principle.

Furthermore, you do this while ignoring the central part of my critique of democracy: not that it is worthless, but that your notion of democracy, if it incepts its content and form within the confines a society, it acts as little more but an alternate motor to it. You must overcome this, necessarily by instrumentalizing insurrection and instantly and then installing a new form of society in which democracy truly changes form because it mediates new forms of forces. This is why Zizek uses the example of Democraps vs. Rethuglicans under liberal democracy: no matter where you look, liberal democracy (democracy under capital) takes on this form in one flavor or another. The PDF of the book in which he outlines this I posted above very nicely supplements this notion, and furthermore also tackles ideas of attempting to mend this by doing it through multitudes under capital, and why there are also clear examples of this failing, and why it can but fail to do more than temporarily suspend masked tensions.

Well that's the other side of the critique, really: if you believe in insurrection; the overthrow of one system towards another, you need to at once destroy capital, but not end up recreating liberal capitalism with red flags. To truly sunder the heart of capitalism, the operation must not only be swift as to minimize the chance of relapse, but also be precise in that it must attack capital's vitals without causing too much damage to that what ultimately matters to any idea of advancing and bettering world-systemicity.

Democracy as a system of governance originates in the Athenian slave society.
I'm not that poster but what your trying to do is to bypass the distinction between democracy as a form of governance and democracy as a form of society.

If you go with the latter humans have been "democratic" for hundreds of thousands of years (it would be more properly anarchist or communist)

Democracy as the manifestation of a certain kind of state-coercion emerged with ancient Athens under slavery. Democracy today is the political expression of wage slavery; in many ways bourgeois democracy itself was influenced by ancient slaveholding democracy and republicanism.

The Soviets argued that their system was more democratic because in practice it could give proles would bourgeois democracy it couldn't. Let's not debate that for now.

Keep in mind it's not such an exceptional claim I've heard medievalists claim that small village life on the ground was more democratic then many aspects of our lives today. That would explain why nobility were so anxious about rank and being directly represented in the state because that position of muh privilege could easily dissipate.

In the bourgeois system of democracy class muh privilege of the capitalist neo-slave owners taken as a whole is more secure then under any other system of government. Even fascism is just a last ditch resort for the bourgeoisie. Fascism arose after centuries of ineffectual protest and a once in a lifetime revolution against capitalist-imperialism, hence we can say that democracy serves capitalist interests better then fascism or even certain varieties of pseudo-socialism like in China.

...

Democracy in it's modern usage means citizenry exercising political power through a process of voting either directly on decisions or through representatives. This is what I mean when I say this is an issue of pedantry, not substance.

My notion of democracy is not of the current political system within the US, Europe etc. These more or less function as oligarchies rather then democracies. My notion of democracy is more in line with the DFNS/Bookchin's conception of democracy, and their revolutionary program.

In this literal sentence you directly confirm that democracy implies vastly different things in form depending on what society or stage within a society we are in, and by extension confirm that democracy is always restricted to the single function of the exercising of political power within such a specific society. What you either do not realize, refuse to realize or shun to investigate is that this directly means that democracy adds a positive to the constant negative of two contradictory forces, in effect only serving to mediate pre-existing conditions with a more ethical, representational, etc. form.

Then why invoke Athenian democracy or even pre-Athenian proto-democracy as an example of the historical ambivlance of democracy? Does that not precisely defeat the attack against supposed pedantry you were making; that democracy has a "true" form, and that the rest is both democracy while not being democracy?

I think this is miles more preferable than what we can call "modern" democracy, but my qualms with the Bookchinite idea of democratic confederalism is that it falls into the same trap of putting an emphasis on superstructural form (democracy) than of truly overthrowing the paradigm this form of democracy should stand atop of (capitalism), and this is twofold in that it is not just a pure fetishization of democracy, but that on the level of capitalism Bookchin claims to in its stead already have a post-capitalism, even though this is at least not congruent with any notion of a materialist idea of post-capitalism (then again, Bookchin is a self-titled naturalist, so yeah).

Democracy breeds IDPol. IDPol destroys civilization.

You can apply the same to socialism, then. Should we not say socialism now because the concept has become contorted to mean social welfare states, or "the government doing stuff". Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument? You insist on defining democracy withing the framework of an outdated ideology, when frankly no one outside of fringe leftist groups share that definition.

You frankly have a poor understanding of bookchin. You're still operating on what can only be called a "false dialectic". The paradigm has been that of domination over "liberation", starting with domination of nature that lead to the institutions and social relations of domination that we have today. Any liberatory project, movement, or institution can be subsumed by forces in a position of domination but that does not mean they have to or will be subsumed. Democracy or socialism can be used by those wishing to dominate but that does not mean they have to or will succumb to it.

Are all the Kims disgusting pigs or is that just their very unfortunate facial structure?

>>>Holla Forums

Communists are not democrats.

It's something about maintaining the "motherly" appearance of the NK leaders, which includes being rather… rounded.