Why do so many leftists (especially /r/ anarchists) push the "le direct democracy" meme like it's actually not mob rule...

No. The days when Lenin's insight on "proletariat vs. bourgeois democracy" was instructive or ideologically potent is over, not because it holds no value, but because the ideological environment changed. In his time the tyranny of pre- and proto-capitalist societies ruled, while genuine capitalist societies were only slightly better for the masses, if at all.

Today everywhere from the global periphery to the central powers are democrats. Only fools cry the song of "no true democracy," only losers fight for a "better, truer, type of democracy."

No. Communists must adapt. Today's message must be: absolutely no democracy. Zero. Nada.
Again,

If we can't provide a post-democratic vision, the fascists will overtake us, for they already dare to be post-democratic, though their vision is a masked form of barbarism.

...

Because Mob Rule is fun

that's not adapting. That's killing any chance of mass support for communism.

MS5 isn’t reactionary. There socdem.

Direct democracy prevents the formation of an eleate class. It didn’t result in any crasy shit in Athans.

Direct Democracy is in my material interest, a one party state isn’t.

That’s because they aren’t democratic. Also we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

Kinda misses the truth of OP's point about the right calling for le true democracy. I don't think this is necessarily insincere on their part, they know that bourgeois democracy splitters constituencies to the point that if they appeal to a hardcore reactionary minority constituency while eclectically mixing pseudo-populist/anti-capitalist rhetoric for everyone else they know they can govern.

Most of today's fascists have taken power democratically and this is quite unlike the era of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and the Japanese fascists who all came to power through anti-democratic means.

In a now dead thread, someone rejected my notion that diret democracy should be a necessity for socialism, and I didn't have time to answer, so might as well do it now.

Considering the leftists pushing for direct democracy included Marx and Lenin (before the material conditions of Russia fucked everything up), I don't mind at all.

Representative democracy is a sham, and I hardly need to argue the point here on Holla Forums. Past that, what else do we have? Dictatorship, direct democracy and sortition. I'm not even going to fucking bother dicussing dictatorship, as it is ultimately anathema to socialism, and a pox upon the house of any cuck who advocates for it beyond a revolutionary or civil war situation. In order tor each the goal of every cook learning how to goovern the State, this can only happen via direct democracy or sortition; he should not relegate his part of running the State to anyone, as happens in a dictatorship or representative democracy. People in power entails people in direct control of the State, and if we are ever to have a hope of the State withering away, it will only be so because the people have learned how to govern their lives and societies by themselves, without the need of the State apparatus.

So this demand is not up to discussion: past revolutionary and civil war phases, it's direct democracy or bust, or even sortition where possible.

This thread is abit, isn't it?

If you've actually talked to people you'd realize that the majority is absolutely abhorred by democracies. What is the average voting participation percentage globally? Say, 50-60%? From those who actually show up to vote how many do actually think that they are conscious citizens, changing or at least defending their status quo? 10 to 20%?

What percentage actually believes in democracy? And by "belief" I don't mean "gives lip service to" but actual deeds: who regularly discuss and watch parliamentary coverage, who read 2+ newspapers a week, who reads beyond the titles of internet articles, who… should I go on?

How many of you, defenders, re-definers, re-contextualizers, re-actualizers of democracies actually believe in democracies? None. And you all know it.

So talk to regular people, and they will tell you, and you will understand what they say if you have the ears. And when you witness them vote for and join fascist parties, or more mundane, naturally, just switching from one to another, without aim or reason – a truly democratic outlook –, you'll better see on the one hand the implicit anti-democratic subtext in the fascist politics, and realize that is their number one strength, and on the other, see the lost souls never-ending quest for democracy, in which there's no actual aim or goal.

You either let our potential allies join up with implicit anti-democrats (whose form of anti-democracy is barbarism), or you let them wonder aimlessly, worse, you join them, playing the reformist game, losing them and yourself too in the process, or, finally, you proclaim yourself a 21st. century communist, and attack democracy on all fronts in order to save what is worth of its legacy, and surpass it.

thats not just in contrast to the thinkers you listed, but literally to every 19th century leftist thinker and Marx himself!

21st century called, and it wants its prosthesis back, grandpa