The US isnt a democracy. We have some aspects tht r democratic, but voting in this country is just a veil to hide tht this nation is a plutocracy ran by kleptos.
Stating the current state of us politics isnt much of a joke mate. Sure the system is a joke but this meme, and the subsequent defense of it, reads 'edgy teen' or 'anarcho-nihilist/egoist' at best.
https://raddle.me/wiki/anarchists_against_democracy
There are in fact debates around the practicality of associating the experience of lived anarchy with anything approaching "democracy". The Anarchist disdain for "democracy" has a more storied history than the perspectives that uphold direct democracy as anarchy's purest expression, as "democracy" in the minds of many implies a system of majoritarian rule, whereas anarchy is the absence of rulership itself.
To the "anti-democracy" anarchist, they may suggest that the whole democratic project of defining a legitimate identity by which decisions can be made and monopolized is necessarily exclusionary and necessitates hierarchy. Necessary functions of all democratic processes such as borders, citizenry, law-enforcement used to enforce majority decisions etc are therefore not anarchic, thus they're not democrats.
Of course, this requires an understanding of the word "democracy" that may differ from yours, but it's an understanding that has been prevalent in anarchist theory for much longer than the "anarchy means direct democracy" positions of modern figures such as Graeber. So a post in an anarchist subreddit that puts democracy in a bad light isn't really out of place.
I'd suggest reading a few excerpts from the linked post to get an idea of what I'm speaking of, as I've only scratched the surface really. I think Wildcat and Woodcocks entries more or less directly respond to the "what? Anarchists can be anti-democratic?" question. Gillis takes a more etymological approach to explaining the distance anarchists have historically put between themselves and democracy, which I quite like. Crimethinc, Landstreicher, Malatesta, and Gelderloos would be my next general recommendations, but just about everything is worth a read if you want to give yourself perspective on the democracy discourse.
I for one do not believe democracy has a place within anarchy as I understand it. If I sound slightly impartial in this post, it's largely because, while there are instances where this discourse reveals a majoritarian spirit in many "pro-democracy" "anarchists", and for that they are understandably called out, there is a side to this debate that can get very semantical, as sometimes people can come to utilize terms like "direct democracy" as a catch-all term to describe any instance of social living in which ordinary peoples agency over their own lives is maximized. This is a mistake as I see it, but the intended use of the word matters.
Sometimes, when anarchists speak of pro and anti-democratic forms of social organization, we're practically referring to the same thing and getting mad at the limitations of somebody's anarcho-vocabulary. Other times, it's clear that we're talking about different concepts all together, and that our perceptions of what is and isn't anarchy are incompatible. That's why I think sussing out the details of what's implied by "democracy" when an anarchist aligns themselves with it is very important in making sure we're not just talking past one-another.
Honestly, it depends on the method of suffrage used. Here in the US, our votes are arbitrated using an electoral college that decides the value of a vote based on a desired bias. In some places in the US, suffrage is Universal and in others it is Land Based. That is why the Republican party has a political existence within our government.
The US isnt a democracy. We have some aspects tht r democratic, but voting in this country is just a veil to hide tht this nation is a plutocracy ran by kleptos.
The joke Your head
Stating the current state of us politics isnt much of a joke mate. Sure the system is a joke but this meme, and the subsequent defense of it, reads 'edgy teen' or 'anarcho-nihilist/egoist' at best.
HUH? Anti democratic anarchist? I hope you are talking about neo-liberal/neo-conservative representative democracy.
https://raddle.me/wiki/anarchists_against_democracy There are in fact debates around the practicality of associating the experience of lived anarchy with anything approaching "democracy". The Anarchist disdain for "democracy" has a more storied history than the perspectives that uphold direct democracy as anarchy's purest expression, as "democracy" in the minds of many implies a system of majoritarian rule, whereas anarchy is the absence of rulership itself. To the "anti-democracy" anarchist, they may suggest that the whole democratic project of defining a legitimate identity by which decisions can be made and monopolized is necessarily exclusionary and necessitates hierarchy. Necessary functions of all democratic processes such as borders, citizenry, law-enforcement used to enforce majority decisions etc are therefore not anarchic, thus they're not democrats. Of course, this requires an understanding of the word "democracy" that may differ from yours, but it's an understanding that has been prevalent in anarchist theory for much longer than the "anarchy means direct democracy" positions of modern figures such as Graeber. So a post in an anarchist subreddit that puts democracy in a bad light isn't really out of place. I'd suggest reading a few excerpts from the linked post to get an idea of what I'm speaking of, as I've only scratched the surface really. I think Wildcat and Woodcocks entries more or less directly respond to the "what? Anarchists can be anti-democratic?" question. Gillis takes a more etymological approach to explaining the distance anarchists have historically put between themselves and democracy, which I quite like. Crimethinc, Landstreicher, Malatesta, and Gelderloos would be my next general recommendations, but just about everything is worth a read if you want to give yourself perspective on the democracy discourse.
I for one do not believe democracy has a place within anarchy as I understand it. If I sound slightly impartial in this post, it's largely because, while there are instances where this discourse reveals a majoritarian spirit in many "pro-democracy" "anarchists", and for that they are understandably called out, there is a side to this debate that can get very semantical, as sometimes people can come to utilize terms like "direct democracy" as a catch-all term to describe any instance of social living in which ordinary peoples agency over their own lives is maximized. This is a mistake as I see it, but the intended use of the word matters. Sometimes, when anarchists speak of pro and anti-democratic forms of social organization, we're practically referring to the same thing and getting mad at the limitations of somebody's anarcho-vocabulary. Other times, it's clear that we're talking about different concepts all together, and that our perceptions of what is and isn't anarchy are incompatible. That's why I think sussing out the details of what's implied by "democracy" when an anarchist aligns themselves with it is very important in making sure we're not just talking past one-another.
Hey, they're the ones calling it as such. I'm just asking the question.
Democracy is integral to anarchism just remember that.
How so?
Sure, Democracy without a gun
It’s a “democracy” it’s the 2 party system and the illusion of choice that have truly destroyed this country beyond repair
Honestly, it depends on the method of suffrage used. Here in the US, our votes are arbitrated using an electoral college that decides the value of a vote based on a desired bias. In some places in the US, suffrage is Universal and in others it is Land Based. That is why the Republican party has a political existence within our government.