Who else /anti-democracy/ here?

If its inherently objectionable of course you would be

Most people here are

Nazibol and Democratic Confederalism both look better than they are because of the girls with guns, it's not fair.

Not an argument

Stick your vanguard party up your rectum. You red fascist.

how's that executive council treating ya?

There's a difference between an executive council that assists and coordinates efforts, versus a class of bureaucrats that demands blind obedience and monopoly control over the distribution of resources.

Literally nothing wrong with this if they using it towards building Communism.
Your problem is you have some absurd assumption that everyone in your cute little council votes wont just be dumb shits like usual and vote for liberal or straight up Holla Forums policies.

Uncontrolled power gets abused.

Democracy is the definition of uncontrolled power

Reminder that Bordiga was an advocate of organic centralism, not autocracy (though I don't think pure organic centralism is workable in practice).

Me.

Workers' Councils 2: Return of the Pancake

Organic centralism is pretty specific and most people here misunderstand it I feel. Reading some Bordiga and Damen it's actually a form of consensus decision-making within the class party. The Italian left's idea of the vanguard is also different from the Leninist one, with an entirely different concept of it.

marxists.org/archive/damen/1951/centralised.htm

Yes, that's why we need to handover power to an uncontrolled dictator.

Democracy is the most useless anticommunist term imaginable. Self-proclaimed radicals who apply it to themselves (democratic socialists) always do so to compare themselves to bourgeois dictatorship, because that's what the word means to most.

Literally nothing wrong with a dictator that acts towards Communism

That's not what Bordiga argued for though. In the eyes of Leftcoms fascism and Stalinism were peak democracy. In other words, read a book.

...

I only like democracy when it helps me get what I want. Otherwise if people vote on things that directly disagree with me, then I hate it.

Exactly, its why its such a stupid system

Depends on how you interept my Kropotkin styled anarchism. It depends on your perspective if it's a free association of labor or if it's a loose consensus democracy with free association of labor. Consensus democracy doesn't work like black or white nor is it something like a complete law over the people limiting the free association over the means of productions.

What do you fucking leftcoms think is going to happen if you jettison every organizational feature that doesn't adhere to your dogmatic interpretation of Marx? Lenin is not going to come back to life and create a global authoritarian dictatorship that will always "act towards the establishment of Communism." Literally a retarded idealist child's understanding of politics and power.

You're replying to three Leninists there (outside of the OP) I think, not leftcoms. Dissing the consensus decisions workers come to under councils is as tankie as it gets.

Yeah, that was my point. I don't think that purely consensus decision making is realistic for a number of reasons, but it's very clearly not autocracy.

Also: Onorato Damen was based as fuck.

...

What definition of class are you using here?

stop posting any day now

forgot to turn off shitposting flag

in every democracy there are things that are undemocratic, there is no real democracy in this sense that there is no real version of any ideology, it is what is

I need a break from this fucking forum

Holla Forums's just becoming the mirror of Holla Forums, with all the same retardation

*patiently waits for 51% of workers to support socdem reforms*

It's true, just look at tankie twitter

Bordiga wasn't "anti-democracy," that's a bastardization of his thoughts. He thought there was plenty of appropriate avenues and situations for democracy, but not that it was an infallible system that can do no wrong.

...

"Communism may be called 'democratic' if democracy means that everyone has a say in the running of the society, but this will not be so because of people's ability and desire to manage society, or because we would all be educated enough to master the art of sound administration.
. . .Communism is of course the movement of a vast majority at long last able to take actions into their own hands. To that extent communism is 'democratic', but it does not uphold democracy as a principle.
. . . Communism is neither the rule of the most numerous nor of the wise few.
. . . Communism is neither democratic or dictatorial." - pg 60-63 Eclipse and re-emergence of the communist movement.

And so the bookchinite shows they are just crypto-anarchist.

One of the expressions of the limitations of the Russian proletariat's revolutionary consciousness, was the creation of the creation of the sovnarkom, which, along with the Party, became the center of counter-revolution.

These people get it

Horseshit. He meant not have been anti-democracy as an inherent ideal in of itself but he shat on it as a principle as ever being inherently justifiable outside mere contingency.

If you define democracy as the state being controlled by votes then I am anti-democracy.
In the vaguer sense of "people's power" then ofcourse, I am for it.

Who is that lady top-left?

Also:

Sshhh no democracy now, just anarchy

>>>/plebbit/

pleb
Athens is the way to go
ONE RANDOM TO RULE THEM ALL

Imageboards are a type of forum.

I'm not for democracy because when there is a direct rule of the majority the minority doesn't get guaranteed rights.

no democracy is absolute, there are limits placed on political power in any framework for government.

If you are not for majority rule then you are for minority rule.

This board is so fucking bourgeois it's painful

eventually, that power will be used against you. don't think it won't.

So long as political power exists it can't be anything but dictatorial. Only a state can restrain the reach of another state. Despite what the ruling class would have you believe, a worthless piece of paper doesn't stop them from slaughtering their slaves en masse.

That's unavoidable. Society is the tyranny of everyone over everyone, not even the most sovereign autocrat can avoid that as his reign depends on consent.

"Checks and balances" is the most cringe-inducing liberal garbage I'm forced to endure here. A self-proclaimed socialist board should be sharp enough to form their own view of society, not just regurgitate what they've been told all their lives.

All power, no matter what kind, is resisted in some form or another. And all forms of power operate on some kind of logic within a set of boundaries. Sure, these boundaries can be crossed, but even that trespassing has its limits.

Exactly, so wouldn't you want to advocate for an internal logic of state power which limits that power or makes it easier to resist?

I never said anything about checks and balances. But I would say that throwing out the early liberal project that examined the workings of the state and its creation on instinct isn't helpful. Read Machiavelli and Rousseau.

No shit, that doesn't mean a state resists itself.

Like I said, that's logical a absurdity. What I'd prefer is to see power within the dictatorship to be more widely-distributed.

That's not even what I'm talking about, dumbass.

Sure, but even that power will be used against you. And that power will have some sort of internal logic it will be operating under. Why on earth would you not fight for limits to that power with that logic?

democracy as a spooked liberal ideal != democracy as a means to an end to avoid opportunism