Communists oppose democratism in all of its forms

As an anarcho-communist it strikes me crazy that some people claiming to be anarchists advocate democracy in different forms.

First of all, the so called "direct-democratic" project is a liberal pipe-dream. Society structured upon communes override its very logic, and if you wish for a "democratic society" by thinking that it could be "direct" in any way you miss the very defining characteristic of democracy itself: coercion of the minority by the majority as created by the democratic process.

And to those who think that any kind of in-between society from socialism to communism should be "democratic:" literally, WTF! The proletariat should abolish itself by its common interests not by constructing fictions by which it can endlessly separate itself.

Those who advocate for any kind of "democracy" are by definition NOT anarchists.

Are these people claiming to be anarchists actually reading theory?!

Communalism my man. The idea that communes won't have majority vote, that all decisions have to be unanimous, is absurd. Also, daily reminder that the proletariat isn't a revolutionary class

To the wall you go.


You don't understand the post-coercion society.

Rigid hierarchy found in the workplace simply regiments people to said hierarchy. Read Bookchin.

You don't understand the impracticality of what you're proposing

Yep. Our goal should be no form of rule, not the rule of this class or another. Fetishism of democracy is a poison. It makes you a more consistent liberal than socialist.

BOY are these false flags getting lazy nowadays.

How is this in connection to this whole thread?!

No thanks.

You don't understand what was already said ITT.

KEK

You really don't understand anarchism if you oppose a direct-democracy with personal autonomy and horizontal powerstructures. An anarchist socity will be a democratic one by definition.

You really don't understand communism if you bring up any possible forms of democracy as such. If you live in commune A and their collective rules bug you off, you move on to commune B.

This is exactly not democratic. Democracy would imply that you'd have to accept being coerced into something you don't like.

Again, and for the last fucking time: communist are not just non-democratic, communists oppose democraticism in all of its forms.

tankie pls

the only alternative to majority rule is minority rule

lmao
the very act of living is a coercion

Voluntary society now!

damn son youre retarded

This is coercion

look at the fucking words dude

LEL! Name one anarchist attempt that didn't include terror! Just because you live in your fantasy world, the reality is the same: all those who wish to bring about a radically different society will have to use violence.

Ancoms understand that their preferred society will take casualties and the extermination of unwanted/class-enemy elements. If you deny this you deny the very history of anarcho-communism, and you are at best a liberal who likes eunuch stories about anarchist utopias.

Ok. What is a 'majority'? What is a 'minority'? Both of these terms are created by the democratic process. This implies that A gets to rule over B.

How are you a communist again?
(Talk about false-flags!)


How? If I don't like commune A and can freely move on to commune B or found my own, how it is coercion?!

This. $100 says this whole thread is just a butthurt tankie falseflag.

It's "without rulers," not "without rule." Read a book.

Merely explaining why the proletariat isn't a revolutionary class.
*Social Ecologist
Where have you elaborated how this system would be practical?

I'm utterly debunked.

Define this circumstance as anything other then majority rule

I'm thinking it's that, reddit, Holla Forums, or just someone very autistic.

yeah that is totally not coercion
ps leaving isn't just walking away and finding another house and having your life teleported with you

Communism isn't about practicality, it is in fact a pretty much one way to oppose such notions.

Bookchin is a humanist democrat.

You didn't and I can't wait for your explanation for this.


Communism, ffs.


CAN YOU EVEN READ?!

archy != rule

like seriously, google

coercion is not "being ruled over"

is english your first language

You wouldn't happen to be the hoxaist from the other thread would you?

Who said it was?

Proletariat won't emanicpate itself, because they become regimented to the system of hierarchy and learn to accept it as a fact of life. Classes in decay, those that are to the most inhumane of treatment, and the consequences of environmental destruction is what leads to revolution not a proletariat class.

*are subjected to

Again, to the wall you go. The proletariat are exactly the substance of history that can overcome hierarchies.

WUT! Did you even RTFM?

Is English your first language?

Did you even read 101?

"A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity – the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented"

I love how some triggered mod bumplocked this thread.

This thread is NOT:
- shitposting thread
- Holla Forums thread
- demagoguery

It is an actual ancom thread that hasn't been been made in months.

There's exactly zero reason to bumplock it. I'm glad that some mods are salty, tho. Maybe research communism a bit more.

Except that history so far has proven that false. After two world wars, capitalism is still as strong as ever. Technological progression has still continued, despite Marx's predictions, and countries with a strong proletariat moved towards fascism (Germany) instead of communism. Keep clinging to false theories and failed praxis if you want to though. The historical conflict is between domination and liberation, and the crisis of capitalism appears before us not by proletarian revolt but by the creation of unsustainable circumstances caused by environmental catastrophe. Read up on Dialectical Naturalism.

Despite the fact that you're a pedant and a dogmatist, I don't think this thread should have been bumplocked

You are free to prove your claims. That is, if asshurt mod allows it.

which claim? Most of what I stated in
is historical fact, as far as proving the theory that the domination/liberation is the historical conflict I would suggest you read his arguments for yourself. The Ecology of Freedom pretty much deals with what I'm talking about.