What would the difference be between bourgeoisie democracy and proletariat democracy

What would the difference be between bourgeoisie democracy and proletariat democracy

Other urls found in this thread:

workplacedemocracy.com/tag/the-invisible-hook/
youtube.com/watch?v=PeihcfYft9w
spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secG6.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Isn't this just a synonym for representative democracy?
I assume it's based on either direct democracy or liquid democracy. Either one is fine.

democracy is bourgeois

we want a anrchy

Proletarian democracy, as understood by Marx, was to take the form of council democracy, as seen in the Paris Commune. If anything, it's overwhelmingly similar to anarchism, except for that it puts a greater emphasis on the councils acting of their own volition to preserve the revolution's gains from reactionaries in an organized fashion.

who invented this meme, we simply don't agree in tyrannical implementations of a system trying to solve capitalism contradictions

You're not an anarchist then.

You cannot have a society absolutely without (an) rulers (archon) over people without having voluntary institutions of democracy (demos = people, kratein = rule).

"Undemocratic anarchy" is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron - just like "anarcho-capitalism", which is a better descriptor of your incoherent ideology.

Slow down there, Renzo Novatore. Ancom is perfectly compatible with democracy.

on a democratic process, the 51% rules over the 49%, we do not want this, we want mutual reciprocity, our problems are not solved using the tyranny of the majority, but by reaching mutual benefit

One society is dictated by the propertied, the other by the propertyless. Anything else is petty details.

Once again, the ancap-with-the-wrong-flag proves himself to be a liberal at heart with arguments taken from US high school teachers. SAD!

That depends on what kind of power the majority has in the first place. You can solve this with a constitution y'know, so that you couldn't vote to kill someone arbitrarily, for example.

look at this dumb fucking idiot that belives an union of egoists is democratic KEK!

It's the people ruling, on their terms. It's democracy by definition and arguably the purest example of it, you fucking moron.
Yes, constitution. Pirates were anarcho-communists were constitutional democrats.
workplacedemocracy.com/tag/the-invisible-hook/

...

people do not rule in an union of egoists, there are no rulers in an union of egoists to begin with other than the ego, it is a reciprocal union, just because all egoists want to do something, doesn't mean the majority of egos can rule over the individual ego, as if you do that, you prove you do not consider the ego of another man as the highest authority, and therefore he shouldn't rexpect yours, this is no longer a union

just because the majority agrees, doesn't mean it is correct, we have to reach mutual agreement, this might sound overcomplicated, but at the end, will help us avoid conflict when we reach such stage

sick downvote

union of egoists is democratic. If they both vote to go to a restaurant then their union continues, if one votes to go and the other to stay then the first person leaves and their union ends. For the union to continue, it must be consented, ergo democratic. Read Stirner, you fool.

I'm the good annil, btw. The other is retarded.

Wow you really are retarded.

what? what makes you belive that an egoist union has to be dick-knitted and doing everything together, my ego wants to go to a restaurant, this is what my ego desires, I'll ask yours, is that what your ego desires, if you say yes, then we go together, if you say no, then I as an egoist, understand that the ego is highest authority, and do not force my will upon you, as I want my property to be happy, and my property can only be happy if he follows his own desires

The union continues insofar as the authority of the ego continues, when you decide to rule over it, it is ended

Read stirner, you double fool

you jackass. actually fucking read Stirner.

You do seem better than the other one.
My thoughts, basically. His arguments are the same, almost word for word, as those of my HS sophomore-year World History teacher against direct democracy.

Don't worry, it didn't come up because I sperged out about it. I wasn't even a leftist at the time. I can't believe I was such a liberal.

That being said, though, the whole point of the union of egoists is that people can leave it and form it anew at any time. There is no voting, but it's still democracy.

Nice spook :^)
You fetishize the primacy of the ego so much that the advocacy in its name itself becomes a spook for you.
In fact, you're trying to make Stirner conform to the lines of conventional social anarchism, that all society should be run along the lines of voluntary direct democracy, with particular associations enshrined in the constitutions of communes to ensure that everything remains voluntary.

There are two ways to be a Stirnerite: either to have not read him and truly be one or to have read him and understand them, thus resulting in the logical and immediate conclusion of being anti-Stirnerite as the idealist premises fall apart when considering the material world around oneself and how it can push back.
You think you understand Stirner, but you don't. Stirner is just Engels's alter ego for despooking his contemporaries to get them ready for Marxism.

Of course, the dialectical metaphysics ended up becoming a spook in themselves because they failed to be a truly objective representation of the material world and its dynamics by virtue of themselves coming from idealism and not the material world itself like pragmatism, but that's a different topic.

what are you, retarded? Do you unironically belive I cannot unite my ego with you, despite you being at the otherside of the world? do you belive the union of ego has to be together as a final entity that overcomes capitalism/communism/whatever?

where did you read this? are you sure you read stirner? as long as society follows their own desires, and takes care of their property by letting their property follow their own's we have an union of egoists

If you belive this is a problem, you should read Lacan, and if you find that difficult, start with Zizek, if we understand that our desire is never a desire for a real thing, but a desire for a past enjoyment, and that our desire is manufactured based on the idea that we want to desire it, it makes sense to understand how democracy simply is not necessary in an union of egoists, and we can perfectly exemply it with this conversation.

Your opinion of an union of egoists being democratic is not correct simply because you and other people belive it is, but because you are able to prove such thing to begin with, I do not belive that the union of egoists is democratic, therefore I must convince other egoists to understand why. ONLY after hegelian dialectics, (since stirner was his fucking pupil)
is it that we can reach the synthesis

The synthetis is never democratic, we do not reach such state simply because of the majority decides to, but because were were able to have a dialogue and come up with it

Back to Lacan, if we understand that our desires are artificial, then its incredibly to understand how an union of egoists would never run into such problem, as we can simply solve it by convicning each other, and pointing out how our position is the correct synthesis, If you have a desire, and my ego is in the way, you can either chose not to respect your property, (in which case you do not care about the ego, you are but a petty tyrant) or you can decide to engage in a conversation to convince the egoist to do as you will.


Fucking amateur hours on Holla Forums right now

wrong, sacred happiness is

what a fucking pleb

youtube.com/watch?v=PeihcfYft9w

And yet your happiness is sacred - it must be for idealist egoism to unconditionally work as something of itself desirable to the ego, that is, a viable line along which to organize society and at least preserve, if not improve upon, the material standard of living today provided to you by it.

What if an egoist decides that he doesn't like the idea of others (his "property") being happy or their independent activities clash with his well-being? What does he do? He must make them miserable to stop, even kill them if need be. With this kind of attitude, society would actually fall apart and that is not in your best interests - you want those material goods alongside your maximized freedom.

The only good egoism is a pragmatic one bound to materialist analysis - a staunchly communist variety of anarcho-syndicalism, if you will.

So my happiness is sacred but yours isn't? who says this, you? Is your cause sacred, Is your authority sacred? Is your cause supposed to be my cause? You refuse to let go of your democratic spooks, the cause of the majority is the majority's cause, not my cause. It's clear that you are arguing in bad faith here, why should I care about your democratic tyranny? You clearly do not hold my ego in equal value as yours, you hold yours at a higher level, there cannot be a union with this, Why shouldn't the position of the majority be discussed? It ceirtanly looks like it is the majority's cause the one that is sacred now

What is my concern then? If I am supposed to make the majority's concern, mine

I already explained this before, If his will is to be a sadist, then there must be a masochists willing to have a union with him. I am not a masochists, and I simply won't follow his cause, but mines

I care about my property because it is my property and I love my property as an extension of my free will as I decided that it should be my property

You are a fool, read spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secG6.html


Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger . . . [such a society or association] is more of a religious society [than a real Egoist's association]" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 24]

You hold democracy as a religious concept, democracy isn't sacred, and neither is the demos

We already discussed that "democracy" is "demos" (people) + "kratein" (rule). There's no implication of voting, anywhere. Consensus democracy is a thing, and a close relative to the union of egoists. The union of egoists is just one very pure manifestation of democracy, untainted by the concept of majority rule (which you falsely equate with democracy as a whole).
That is extremely spooky of itself - it's not wrong in what needs to happen to create a world worth living in for the ego and its own, but it's still spooky. Unfortunately, the real reason why we /must/ love others for society to work is not a spook, it is because of material conditions. No one wants to actually live in primitivism, everyone wants to live in the material superabundance of communism. Why? We define ourselves, whether we like it or not, by what goods we have. How can man develop himself if he is liable to spurn the other and therefore spend his days needlessly working hard at sustaining himself in the wilds? Do material conditions favorable to the actualization of the ego's potential just pop up out of the blue in nature?

I am, in fact, a social anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist, specifically) who takes a modified, materialist version of egoism as the base of my politics - I originally got this idea from that particular section of the FAQ and realized that I had been an egoist all along. If you'd just drop this stupid spooky liberal meme of "democracy is majority rule", then you could see the obvious as well. That meme is itself a spook, meant to justify the false bourgeois parliamentarianism which liberal capitalists call democracy and justify by straw man and false dichotomy.

its ironic that you call anyone a liberal while at the same time advocating for democracy, it was but the liberals the ones that stablished democracy in the US and France, not the anarchists, the syndicalist or the communists

PARLIAMENTS AREN'T DEMOCRACIES, FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON.

Pirates were democratic and basically unions of egoists. We already went over this.
Same thing

pirates had no democracies, the minority could start a mutiny at any moment, and if they managed to overcome the majority, they were the new rulers
pirates never agreed to simply obey, they would fight against each other and against the captain

oh wow

Communism's goal is a stateless, classless society of maximum individual freedom, based upon the guiding principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need".

Anarchism's goal is a society maximizing individual freedom by questioning all authority and hierarchy, removing it if unjustifiable in the face of the ruled - thus it is that it aims to create a society without rulers, an-archon.

They are one and the same in goal, and anarcho-communism (along with its child anarcho-syndicalism) makes them the same in praxis and theory.
Go back up in this thread and read, you shitposting nitwit.

and who determines needs but the dictatroship of the proletariat you imbecile, is a dictatorship anarchism now?

besides, using the preposition "to" implies such thing is given, awarded, no taken, this isn't anarchism, freedom is taken, not granted by a dictatorship

I've read more about piracy anthropology than what has been posted on that fucking thread and discussing piracy on leftypol for more than a year, you cunt

oh, you means such as the one found IN A DEMOCRACY, WHERE THE MAJORITY IS THE AUTHORITY?

the democratic process found in a pirate ship was definitely not a sacred one, the majority wants the minority to clean barnacles forever while they enjoy the food and the wine? well fuck them and fuck your democracy too, we will create a mutiny,

Loose consensus democracy is anarchic.

bourgeois/liberal democracy refers to the democratic process put in action by post french revolution ideology; it means that the democracies that resulted from these ideology are the rule of the bourgeoisie, the same way the next revolution will bring proletariat rule.

That's different you nigger, we're in direct communication over the internet rather than completely seperate.
Nowhere does Stirner say he accepts hegelian dialectic. I was trained under a lolbert for a college course, do I have to emulate his ideas now?

Former is an oligarchy purporting to be representative and a democracy. The latter is representative and a democracy, at least in the case of soviet democracy.