this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
306 points (97.8% liked)

196

16574 readers
1847 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

99.9% of all institutions in my life are at best feudal orders, run by aristocrats so far removed from my life that they wouldn’t even know how to survive without their armies of servants, nannies, and assistants. Democracy needs to extend beyond the state. Democracy must be present in every part of our society, or it will, as it has now, inevitably become nothing more than another oligarchy for and by the rich.

Recommended readings:

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire.
Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon.
Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber.
Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti.
Neocolonialism by Kwame Nkrumah.
Anarchism and other Essays by Emma Goldman.

Recommendations from the comments:

/u/BallShapedMan - The Dictator’s Handbook by by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

All heirarchy is bad

Unless it's democratically elected hierarchy, right?

[–] rockSlayer 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sort of. Think for example, of consent-based policing. There are some tasks police do that are genuinely good and worthwhile. However, if there is not a democratic process to bar people from being in those roles of power after abusing them, then it's still a bad heirarchy.

Different example: say there's an elected steward of the commons in a library economy who fails to uphold their duties of automating the means of production. It would still be a bad heirarchy if this problem cannot be resolved by democratic means.

Edit: I forgot about the solution to preventing these problems: unions. They would serve a drastically different role, obviously. But their purpose would still be to facilitate these democratic actions through direct action and organizing.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No need for hierarchy, it is different than designated leadership and roles.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is it different? That doesn't seem obvious to me.

[–] EndlessApollo 3 points 1 year ago

Leaders and organizers and stuff will always be necessary even in an anarchist society, but those roles shouldn't be given the reverence and special treatment that they currently are. They're important roles, and should be respected and cooperated with just like any other role, but if they've proven themselves to be unworthy of that there should be democratic processes to replace them. People in leadership roles shouldn't be earning 10+x what everyone else is, and they shouldn't be able to hold onto power the way they currently are

[–] phthalocyanin 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

no. power centralized in the beaurocratic state apparatus is also oppressive. electoral politics are a sham, and democracy is impotent when the capital owning class can simply buy influence.

if 9 people vote to kill the 10th, is that just?