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

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Based as fuck. Organizing a union is bringing democracy into the authoritarian dictatorship folks call work. Organizing a tenant union is bringing democracy to the commons. All heirarchy is bad, because all heirarchies seek to remove democracy

    • Isoprenoid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      All heirarchy is bad

      Unless it’s democratically elected hierarchy, right?

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        • Isoprenoid
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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

      • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        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?