Wait, so you guys think democracy is bad?

Basically the poor vote for welfare instead of lower taxes.

Every time

Fuck off over to Holla Forums you technofascist cunt.

Why do you shill on this board, techno-fascist

Democucks triggered because they can't prove this wrong

...

voting is only one system of democracy, direct action is also acceptable. you can't stop the 'will of the majority' any more than MLs can stop the reign of an elite few, but the elite are capable of destroying civilization and popular uprising are always opposed.

socialism is the democratization of mop and labor, denial of demokratia is what makes tankie scum consistently anti-socialist/communist.

Probably the best service we could ever render to the revolutionary movement is shooting anybody who refers to democracy as 'mob rule'. We could also shoot anyone who's ever tried to concern troll about a mythical 'tyranny of the majority'.

Holla Forums is just as hostile to my ideas as many of you reds are.
Admittedly, for different reasons.

As much as I love the term ' technofascist', I would have to fundamentally disagree.
I'm not a Fascist.

Indeed I would love to see how you define what exactly 'fascism' is.
If you consider fascism to be simply an authoritarian, non-democratic state; You will quickly find that to be such a wide net that the term is quickly rendered useless.

Oh I do agree.
Those that uphold the Tyranny of the Majority to be some sort of ultimate good are almost always the most tiresome sort of people to deal with.
They are without fail post-modernist, relativist, romantics; With no concern for the Objective, Scientific, Necessary and Material.

I'm not generally against democacy, but a two-party system is just one step away from a one-party system.
Also how is it always a rich guy/girl vs a rich guy/girl? And even this is not adequate, because one man alone can't stem the cost. They have to go begging for cash at Wall Street and the military.
If you do this, they have you in your pocket and you can forget about them tackling neocons and neolibs.
This fucking system is so fucking broken. It's not a democracy, it's a parody of a democracy. It's a "how much democratic elements can we take away from our democracy and still call it democracy" sort of democracy.

Democracy is good if I get what I want, and it's bad when it disagrees with me. Ultimately, my will is supreme.

This. Mobs aren't democracies. Do mobs take a vote? No, its always the loudest people leading the way and everyone else going with the flow.

City state democracies are what is usually meant by 'mob rule', and then the worst that happened was hasty decisions made in the heat of the moment (ie Athens executing a defeated general) when this could be solved by constitutional means.

The problem with trusting 'the few' over 'the many' is that you don't know who makes up 'the few'. It could be enlightened philosopher kings, or it could be porky and the fash.

Nice dubs. Also, everyone's hostile to your shitty ideas because they're a utopian wank fantasy about how everything would be great if everyone just agreed to put you in charge. It's Republic-tier scrub nonsense.

That isn't too wide a net, it's exactly the right size. Authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes are exactly the thing that we hate. There are many such regimes both past and present - we hate them all. 'Cunt' is in practice a very broad term too, but it's not rendered less useful by its broad applicability. You technofascist cunt.

Holy shit, the suggestion I made in pays off almost immediately.

The problem with demoshitsy is that you can't "leave" it

Bordiga, "The Democratic Principle"

While I believe some sort of bottom-up feedback structure should be in place (workplace democracy, community councils) I fundamentally reject both broad parliamentarian elections as well as council-fetishism. While the first one is a remenant of the liberal bourgeouis state apparatus, the latter one can quickly turn into a self-serving circlejerk where the delegates are more concerned with their own position instead of accountability to their voters. This can be seen in the early Soviet Union.

Democracy is a tool but doesn't have an inherent value in itself. Democracy should be in place where it proves itself effective, mainly as a feedback system. The vanguard party itself should be democratic but not permitting factions.

Generally, as the population becomes more educated and responsible as it adjusts to the socialist mode of production, gradually more democracy in workplaces should be implemented.

I'm really glad you posted that quote, other Bordigaposters tend to go around here scoffing at democracy without providing the full context of his objection.

No. Democracy with capitalism is better than dictatorship with socialism.

I forgot to add: I believe instead of democracy or a democracy-fetish, we should focus on reciprocal participation.

What an embarrasing post. You should consider killing yourself

Name ONE good thing about democracy

That just happens to be exactly what I consider most forms of socialism to be.
Particularly any form of anarchism.

Did I not just make two posts criticizing democracy?
Why would I care if everyone agreed to something or not?

All anyone that wishes to assume power needs is the backing of those that hold a monopoly on power; the Armed Forces of any given nation.
This has been something that has been known for millennia - ever since the first legionaries to proclaim their general 'Augustus'.

While unworkable for anything above a city-state.
'Republic' is a wonderful work far more inspiring then anything you reds have ever created.

I would certainly hope that you would not consider feudal states to be fascist then?
Tribal monarchies?
Aristocratic/Mercantile Republics?
Theocracies?

I never said other-wise.
The problem is that 'fascism' is not a label to be placed on system that you just happen to hate.
It is a term that refers to a very specific 20th century ideology.

Ok, tipfag, tell me this.
Why would the elite of scientists and military leaders act in the populations interest instead of their own?
You, along with most dictatorship-supporters seem to assume politics is about making right/wrong choices, when most of the time, it is not. It is about conflicting interests. The scientists/generals who made it to the top in your system would undoubtedly be smart enough to recognize their own interests, an as far as I understand, they face zero responsibility towards the population.
Also

recall of incompetent or malicious officials by a group of people too large to buy off.

I wasn't trying to imply that. I was talking more of, y'know, direct democracy.
Like if I'm in a group and we're voting on who gets the last piece of pizza,I'm fine if we all agree it goes to me, but if the majority votes to give it to someone else, I'll take it anyway

No objection can be made to the use of the dilemma, "either bourgeois democracy or proletarian democracy" as a perfect equivalent to the formula "bourgeois democracy or proletarian dictatorship". However, democracy in and of itself is a tacit and dictatorial principle.

They'll beat you up if you do that

On the other hand, if you take it before they take their faggy vote, it's just first come first serve and at worst you can excuse yourself by saying you didn't know you already ate your share

If I were advocating for some primitive dictatorship, you would have a point.
That would indeed be an area of concern.

The thing is.
I'm advocating an explicitly Totalitarian system.
Those that rise to positions of power would not just be the most capable, but they would also be the most committed to Technocratic Ideology and Philosophy.
Such people would simply lack the capacity for individualist, selfish decisions and even thoughts.

The leaders of a Technate would act in accordance with what was best for the majority.
Because they could simply not even comprehend to do otherwise.

I feel stupid for even bothering to ask this, but how would these people be remdered incapable of acting in their own self interest, under your increasingly horrific nightmare of a system?

...

Democracy as a system of governing is awful, but everything else is even worse.

- Lil' Wayne

I don't give a fuck if it's a minority or the majority that rules me.

Wat nou?

why would you even ask this idiot a question, his views are literally identical to Holla Forums nazis where by the magic of celebritism and just-world bias everyone who siezes power is actually the one who merits having it.

ees a fucking retard dude, never talk to tripfags

It's bad as long as so many people are so ignorant.

We must built alternative institutions of learning, so that the people might be able to govern themselves!

It's not "proletarian dictatorship" it's "dictatorship of the proletariat" and it literally only means that the proletariat are the dominant class and that they control the state. The opposite of that would be a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", that the bourgeoisie are the dominant class, not "bourgeois democracy".
A dictatorship of the proletariat would be inherently democratic, since the state is controlled by the popular will (otherwise the proletariat wouldn't be dominant). How that democracy would look like is anyone's guess. A government under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, whether "democratic" or not, is inherently undemocratic since the interests of the bourgeoisie (the minority) will always be put before the interests of the proletariat (the majority).

Public service announcement

Holy fucking shit and this idiot called reds utopian.

In a number of ways.
While the process is alittle different for those unfortunate enough to be born before a Technate is established, I will give you the ideal run down:

The child is born from an artificial womb.
It is far more healthy then those alive now, as the Technate completely controls (and fully automates) breeding - as such the child was created by two forever anonymous, genetically healthy donor subjects.

Assuming that the child passes quality control and survives the necessary modifications.
It is raised (isolated) in an automated facility until it is four.
Once it reaches this age, it is placed in a pre-education course and introduced to other children.
While contact with adults is minimized, it is unfortunately unavoidable; as such any carers are routinely rotated out, to avoid any of the children forming bonds with the staff.

At the age of 5 the child starts his 15 year formal education period.
During this time he goes through many tests and observation periods to determine what educational 'course' he is to follow.
Obviously it is during this time that he is formally introduced to Technocratic Philosophy - a mandatory subject that extreme proficiency in is required.

At the end of this 15 year period.
He must then submit to a 5 year mandatory period of 'National Service'.
He will work every single day of those 5 years.
They will be 18+ hour days, always comprised of extremely hard physical work, book-ended by periods of study of Technocratic Philosophy.

One would expect that after all of that.
They would be quite dedicated and ready for their 15 year working life.

I expect that within a few generations, Technocracy could provide our species with the best gift it could ever hope to receive.
The total and complete elimination of the sickness that is 'individualism'.

Are you seriously proposing that the human animal cannot be trained?
I would think that the mere existence of 'Kamikaze' pilots would show that to be a false assumption.

when wealthy and powerful sectors and individuals can influence or control public thought and opinion, democracy becomes an ally of capitalism and the ruling classes

without capitalism, maybe it could be a good system (although i doubt it). but as it exists now it's just mob rule directed by and to the benefit of the rulers

Democracy, under the principle of "nihil de nobis, sine nobis" is the optimal system for the preservation of individual liberty which should be implemented more broadly outside of the sterile sphere of bourgeois politics, namely in the economic sphere and in all aspects of community life.
We reject the bourgeois representative democracies which serves as the ideological edifice of the bourgeois state which acts in the class interest of the capitalists.

Don't you think societies most capable people would be capable of, you know, lying? Pretending to be the most commited to your specific brand of autism in order to reach positions of power?
So in short, your proposed system has no way to deal with self-intrest among the elite? You just take it for granted that it would not even cross their mind? How can you actually believe this?

well yes. You're not a leftist, so why should we discuss your ideas here?

Since the fucking four is too uptight to provide a translation for the plebs, it means "nothing about us, without us". So, don't make policies that affect other people without giving them a bloody say in the matter.

Depends if you define democracy as "the peoples choose" vs "parlementairy representative electoral democracy"

Because the second one isnt the first one, and is not democratic at all.

LMAO literally brave new world. Why don't you just link yourself up to a lifelong heroin distribution machine? It is obviously a net-gain in pleasure.

Good fucking luck implementing that shit anywhere on a big scale and involving people of heterogenous social backgrounds.

How do you hope to breed such leaders?

And when the directors determine that inflexible autocracy leaves too much room for inefficiency and corruption but the generals don't want to give up their comfy positions of power, what happens?

Or the most convincing roleplaying.

Any system that presents a conflict between individual and collective interest is a failed system.

Nvm, just read

I too was fascinated by plato when i was 15

You seem to be superimposing the modern word upon what I'm attempting to describe.

The leadership would be literally incapable of such actions.
They could no-more disguise any individualist thoughts then you could disguise breathing.

Please also keep in mind that they would only be place-holders.
An AI would eventually takeover their functions.

This board has always been open to discussion on topics and ideas outside of leftism.
If you want a left wing safe space, go to r/FULLCOMMUNISM.

Well that is incorrect.
BNW features biological modification to ensure happiness.
Technocracy would simply provide a philosophy to follow that would lead to the same end.

You seem to misunderstand.
The directors and the general would be one and the same.
Everyone in a Technate (over 20) would hold a military rank.

Tell me.
How would you give an individualist order, when the language you use lacks the words to give it?

Sounds like you'd be far better off just doing away with humanity entirely and replacing them with Synths (or something similar). Then you could skip like all of this.

Democracy is a tool, its worth is measured by it's utilitarian value to an individual who uses it.

Except you're derailing a thread that was obviously directed towards people with various leftist world views. I'm sure OP wasn't interested in how your retarded dystopia will work.

You have to go back.

Put your trip back on.

keep crying the next time a fairweather conservative defends himself with a punch against on of your ilk while posting this

what a joke

I don't post without it, friend :^)

based tripfag

You seem to believe you can just design a state of affairs and then establish it. You don't need to be a marxist to see the problem with this. Pic highly related
"The oligarchs need more freedom in order to rule, while the rest should have restricted freedoms to work better"
It is not about "individualism vs collectivism", it is about being able to protect the interest of the group of people that you are a part of while disregarding the others.
Another problem with your wicked utilitarianism is that it automatically assumes pleasure and content as virtues, while disregarding all else. A content slave without material needs spending his life on braindead labour nd the studying Howard Scotts philosophy(tm) is somehow better than a rebellious and sad artist spending his life developing himself as a human. The reason you believe this is the reason you didn't get the BNW post.

and how do you plan to do any shooting when the not-mob has ruled to ban guns, as in australia?

My God, after reading this I can only imagine what your childhood must've been like.

Why doesn't it make more sense to have a few people specialize in leading the military than to have everyone be a jack of all trades? Running a government and running a military require different sets of skills.

What's an individualist order? Something like "have a nice day" or "just be urself?"

I believe in direct democracy without private property those are my fundamental beliefs

every workplace would run like a co-operative, all community resources would be managed democratically.

...

This meme has to die

I'm part of a co op and it's porky as fuck

Please do feel free to publicly speculate.
I would be very. very interested in your assumptions.

Regardless.
What I described is an idyllic childhood that anyone currently alive could only dream of having.
When you remove 'parents' from the equation, you also remove poverty, abuse and neglect from a child's life.

We unfortunate enough to be born and raised outside of a Technate can only be envious of what a wonderful childhood Technate children would have.

This may have been poor explanation on my part, so I do apologize.

In a Technate, everyone (over 20) would hold a rank.
This rank system would be another way to help organize society.

The Armed Forces would exist, but not everyone would be a part of it.
Ranks would only be an organizational tool, not necessarily a way of identifying occupation.

So are we in agreement that Howard Scott is the single most autistic person/tripfag on this board next to Hoochie Min?

FTFY. Hoochie isn't nearly as bad

Most people here dont want a state so there would be no governments to vote for.

Hoochie is just bitter and sad, Howard is the biggest autist.

wew, lad.

Why is this perfect childhood and a 5 years of slavery desirable while freedom is not?

Hoochie is way dumber, but howard is actually in the autism spectrum by thr looks if it.

How come children raised in foster care, are deficient when compared to children raised by both parents? There's plenty of studies saying that shitty parents are better than no parents. You'd just end up raising mental cripples not some selfless super humans and you want to be ruled by them. The way you proposed to breed leaders is definitely incorrect. Übermensch can't be made just by robbing a child of its parents and putting it into an artificial educational environment. It's a gradual process that combines eugenics and self improvement, that over generations, would evolve into a better human being.

This thread has to be forever enshrined as the place that fuckin tripfag got merked.

Howard Scott, you fail to explain how your proposed system will work, your explaination seem to rely on the myth of a benevolent dictator class, and you have provided, as far as I can see, no reason why your system is desirable and no way to establish it.

This.

You're a literal utopian, this is literally science fiction. There really isn't much more to say. Your ideas are completely antithetical to leftism.

You are actually right this time nazi, but I hope you don't mean ubermench in the nietzschean sense

He would make a good leftist then.

wow xd

Peruse a tome.

Please describe how it is not.

'Freedom' is an empty term used by romanticists.
It is not a practical, achievable nor desirable state for an advance society.

What I proposed is not at all analogous to a foster care system.
You have made a false equivalency.

Further more you should remember that I only indeed to create people competent enough to hold everything together so that an AI is able to take over their function.

Please be specific as to what you would would like me to expound upon.
I would be happy to provide more detail and answer your questions.

I have never claimed to be a leftist.

What empty rhetoric. I mean, you have fun with your dystopian nightmare.

Come on now… Even the most closed minded lefty would have to admit their ideas are a bit naive and utopian. Their proposed society expect humans to act in a way that humans have never acted before throughout history. Like an episode of star trek or something.

No, they don't. Why do you think this?

what way would that be? without wage slavery and bosses? wow that's totally unheard of

Scrutinize a publication.

The whole "democratic" political system is a sham but that doesn't mean democracy is, you could define democracy pretty widely.
I would like a system that did away with elections and just get people chosen at random form a parliament to run the country. A bit like jury service.

Your answer to my question about the problem of the elite acting in self interest was basically "oh, but this time the nice guys will be the slavemasters".
What is (accoeding to you) the "advancement of society" and why is it desirable?

>idyllic

You also remove the child's primary source of social-emotional learning and relationship-building skills. Child abuse is a terrible thing but the perpetrators were usually abused themselves.

Breaking the cycle of abuse with education, eliminating poverty, more comprehensive social services, and easier access to childhood counseling and psychiatric treatment makes much more sense than completely isolating the child during the most crucial years of its psychological development. Why don't you let people who actually know a thing or two about child psychology decide the best way to raise kids?

Why is this necessary or helpful? What would ranks even do outside of a military or administrative role? Other than satisfy that fetish for stratified hierarchies you seem to have.

No. No one that has ever walked the earth can compare to the critical mass of autism this thread is exponentially heading towards. Howard sounds like the result of Chris Chan becoming a scifi buff, but somehow even worse.

…except for all of it that happened before agriculture went mainstream.

No, Milo still shows up occasionally. Also, A.W. gives them all a run for their money.

Your proving my point.

Its idealistic and naive to to think that we could be the first society to work despite removing any compulsion to work. Bosses and the need to be paid a wage etc are just ways in which people are encouraged to do productive work rather than sit around relaxing.

Im not saying its a bad thing. Im not saying that they are right and you are wrong. Or vice versa. But your views are more naive and childish where as pols views are more jaded and cynical. You surely must be self aware enough to recognize that?

Sorry for leddit spacing. But at least I got dubs.

kek

A.W. is based

No need, you did that on your own.

But I didn't. What you described is pretty much the definition of foster care. Furthermore, a selfish parent or carer cannot raise a selfless child. Also if you knew anything about child development, you'd know that selfishness manifests long before the child is five years old; by that time his personality is almost formed. You'd have to mentally torture and pull some MKUltra shit for this even to be remotely possible. That's a long shot from idyllic childhood.
If you were given a five year old child to raise, you wouldn't raise a leader, you'd raise an autistic retard like yourself.

I've only partly read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", it was the most boring shit I've ever read. But from what I gathered, there's nothing sinister about Nietzchean "Übermensch", it's only a qualitatively better human being. He was under the false impression that one could will himself into this super human state (like Super Saiyan transformation lol) He didn't know that there is a genetic component to it - most can never become super human, only the lucky few. That is before we have proper eugenics.

Not the guy you responded to, but reading Zarathustra first is not a good advice.
I would recommend to start with "Beyond Good and Evil" or "On the Genealogy of Morality".

Democracy is complete shit and only works when you have a mass of dumb slaves to exploit. And the instances this has happened was in Ancient Greece and in the 19th-20th centuries.

The lefts fetish for democracy and representation is only an infantile left-over from the left deviation during the Soviet period. In order to differentiate themselves from Soviet style bureaucratic management, all the euro communists, anarchists and socialists descended on the "more democracy"meme like a motherfucker.

Democracy is not at all necessary for communism to work, though some aspects should be democratic in order to avoid total nepotism. Inevitably however those running that society don't need to have that societies political consent. I beleive the highest and most important posts should be occupied by the most knowledgeable, while at the same time some civic participation for the commons should exist.

Zarathustra isn't hard if you're not a dumbfuck.

...

This guy right here, benevolent scientific dictatorship over tyranny of the majority anyday. If you're not intelligent enough to have a good stem degree you can't have a position of power. We should lobotomise the proles for manual labor

aaahaaaaahhh you cant make this shit up

how else will you organise labour ,you fucking faggot?!

Read Bordiga

Thanks, maybe I'll read those.

Glad you find the analogy funny. Now read the context, nigger. I don't believe that people can turn super Saiyan.

Who could have seen this coming?

Where does the ranking information come from? Does it come from the science-facts factory, certified as free of human interference? Is that not a system designed by humans, with categories made by humans and these categories weighted by humans? If you have a ranking system, it could be made by humans in an egalitarian way, everybody having the same voting power. But that you don't want, as you believe that to be mob rule.

Would you rather have it that people who are high in rank have more power in deciding who else is high in rank? After all, they are the best, aren't they. Would you call that meritocratic? Suppose you let people vote who is great and who sucks, and then use the voting pattern to run different simulations with different initial endowments of voting points. Different initial endowment patterns can yield very different results, some of them stable. Which of these then is the right one? Is it the one where everybody starts out with the same amount of points? But isn't that a compromise with mob rule? Or should just the pattern be initialized that is most consistent with the outcome it generates? Does consistency mean much here?

Of course.
If people could vote then some people might vote against communism and then it would stop working because everyone has to be a part of it. Either by choice or by force.

kek the liberal lack of self awareness is staggering

Answering my own question because some people here are dense:

One possible initial voting-point endowment is that I get all the points, everybody else gets nothing. My voting pattern: I am the best, everybody else is equally maximum terrible. The vote aggregate (if it can be even called that) is that I am number one, everybody else is number infinite suck, and as such, I deserve the maximum of voting points. Clearly, the result is stable (= results in the same voting point distribution the scenario started with). There are at least as many stable endowment scenarios as there are people who vote for themselves and against everybody else. Soo… call me crazy, but I think you need some egalitarian mob sauce for the simple practical reason of having anything workable here.

Of course not! We just don't agree with bourgeoisie democracy which involves politicians merely being a way for the oppressing class to exploit the proletariat. What we marxists believe in is the people not only seizing the MoP (of course) but also the superstructure which keeps capitalism alive (the superstructure is things like art, religion, media, and politics)

Leftist autocrat here: representative democracy is a popularity contest and direct democracy is a lynch mob and since most people are selfish, mean, ignorant and dumb while caring, kind, informed and smart people are the minority, therefore democracy is the worst form of government.
True leftists care about the common interests of ALL the people not just the interests of the majority, keep in mind that it's left-wing non-democratic laws that protect minorities while democracy is constantly threatening them.

Then technocracy is not fundamentally different from democracy, since both only care about the majority of people.

Democracy is anti-individualism, it's all about trust in numbers instead of trusting a individual person because it's the most capable and compassionate to rule. A autocrat is a stanch individualist because he wants individuals and not groups of individuals to rule. The problem is not individualism, the problem is which type of persons are in charge, we need to help the most naturally libertarian/anarchistic, compassionate and self-sacrificing persons to become absolute leaders not brainwash people into becoming devoid of personality autistic managers.

What's the point of society if people aren't free to do what they want? It would be just a meaningless preservation of the human species.

That's true only if you don't replace it with the state enslaving the children instead of the parents, which is what you propose. Your system is much worse to children then any parents and school systems currently existing.

The thing calling itself democracy is bad

Anarchism is pretty much radical democracy

most of them don't

I do though and a lot of the people here do. But, most of them are Fascists or M-L's so that's not saying much.

Democracy is for weaklings and sociopaths its not something I can get behind ever. The idea of voting on something disgusts me. The idea that the opinions and needs of anyone outside my kin and neighbors matters also disgusts me. Its a revolting concept. My partner, my off-spring and my neighbors are the only people who matter and you don't vote on things with people like that. You discuss them or just fucking do them, because everyone's on the same page. It is not democracy if it is not centered around consensus or voting. I really don't care what any of the psueds on here say otherwise. If you don't literally count the opinions as if they held weight (were quantifiable), which even with the aforementioned groups I still wouldn't, then its not democracy its just spontaneous self-organization. Which is organic and an organic mode of existence. Democracy is autism and a trap laid by sophists, psueds, charlatans and sociopaths.

No

No i don't think democracy is bad. There is only one propper democracy in all of the western countries tho, which is Switzerland. The rest are just small samples of democracy.

think about anarchism in practise… democracy was always used

those weren't anarchists they were low-impact statists LARP'ing
yeah and look where that got them. SAD!

which kind of definition of the state do you use?
REALLY?? ROJAVA??

Don't bother with him. He's Holla Forums psyops

If you think Australia's gun ban was the result of anything remotely resembling a democratic decision you're a fucking idiot. Little Johnny Howard and his Liberal Party fuckstick buddies unilaterally deciding that nobody can have guns any more is a far fucking cry from a democratic decision.

This is correct. Election of representatives carries with it the implicit assumption that we are choosing the 'best' of us to manage our affairs - a position logically indistinguishable from aristocracy (literally, rule by the aristos, elite).

Also, selecting rulers through election ensures that the primary motivation of elected rulers is securing their power. One might argue that the best way to do this is to rule well, but in practice the incentive isn't actully to rule well, it's to secure power. This is a textbook case of perverse incentives. Democratically elected representatives in practice seek to restrict the voting base required to secure their power, sabotage opposition, divert resources to those sections of their support base that have disproportionate influence, and lie about their performance, all in the name of securing re-election.

Representative democracy in all forms is the death of good government. Selection by lot is the only way forward.

Put your trip back on you fag.

This is a common misconception about Ancient Greece. The section of the Greek population in favour of democracy were not the slave owners - it was the labourers and artisans: the working class. Read some Aristotle you dumb fuck.

Also, "The free development of each shall be the condition of the free development of all" doesn't sound like a position compatible with Howard Scott-style technocracy to me. Stop taking every dumb thing the soviet bureaucracy claimed to defend their rule as a legitimate statement of communist principle.

Neck yourself you fucking scrub.

Back to Holla Forums my retarded friend, your spastic retard fingers have clicked the wrong link.

Yes.

WEW
elitists disguise their fear of the masses by their disdain for plebs

total egalitarian democracy has this nice bonus that it is incompatible with private property
egalitarian democracy thru all its history had always led to a property question

I personally see no alternative to democratic centralism
referendum is a perfect example of democratic centralism, but it is not enough
some mix of representative and direct democracy is needed with the principle that representative democracy should be used only in those cases when direct democracy cannot be used

I like Cockshott's take on democracy which centered around random like Athenian democracy was

by co-op i just mean democratic work space, i don't mean like the pretend co-ops they have now

We like democracy so much that it is essentially the fundamental aspect of our ideal society.

The problem of representative democracy lies in whatever constitutes "representation". Liberals want a system wherein unaccountable autocrats are regularly changed, rather than individual opinion having any relevance in real world politics.

The practical needs of a society, in which consistent participation of all members in all affairs is a pipedream, is not necessarily incompatible with the ideal of a properly democratic political system.

I imagine representative democracy like a hierarchical system of soviets with instantly recallable delegates

it may be not optimal, but fuck it
but there's this question of on what basis should these soviets be formed? on a territorial basis? on a place of work basis? on a specialization basis?

it had overwhelming popular support and still does. the urban population's attitude toward the ban's few, mostly rural opponents was "lol fuck you. majority rules." just because it wasn't put to a referendum doesn't mean it wasn't democratic

australia's gun laws are a product of the general public's irrational attitude towards guns. they couldn't work without them

Democracy is good
But we don't have democracy
Money buys votes. Whether it be the media, political campaigns, pork barreling, bribery, "favours", threatening to go off shore if taxes are raised or whatever, etc etc
Policy is dictated by the rich at the end of the day, voters don't have a real option in this system.