Anti-democratic literature

hey butterfly are you an anarchist?

For fuck's sake, just STOP posting!

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demarchy

No.
Yes.

Attached: 414MRCYwZ6L._SY346_.jpg (254x346, 14K)

>Under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principal under autocratic control
>--Noam Chomsky

Attached: 6827013020_5ec7cd66e1_b.jpg (1023x932, 231K)

Denial absolutely

depends on whether you're looking for "democracy is bad" critiques or "democracy is not democratic enough" critiques. examples of each type have been posted here

>X is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principal under autocratic control
name a state that has ever operated where this isn't true

So you see why state and capitalism have to go

Notes On Democracy by HL Mencken
The French Revolution by Joseph De Maistre
Anything by Thomas Carlyle
Anything by Friedrich Nietzsche
Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
Reflections of a Russian Statesman by Konstantin Pobedonostsev

who is going to enforce the anarchy or: how will you beat down the self-interested, ruthless and strong members of an anarchical community who wager that they'd be better off as owners of a state than as co-citizens of the anarchy?

Practically everything written before "The Enlightenment"

Attached: No thank you, no founding fathers or enlightment bullshit for me..jpg (572x590, 84K)

uhh, no? all successful democracies going back to ancient Athens have operated with autocratic central institutions, what the fuck would the purpose of a democracy be if no one is enforced the results of public decisions?

Plato's Republic and Aristotles Politics.

combine this question with , leftoids follow Aristotle's definition of democracy as rule of the poor. Since we simply know that the poor want communism, if a regime is not communistic it cannot by definition be democratic. Public decisions that are not in line with communism or social liberalism are similarly viewed by leftoids as tainted or false because we simply know that the poor majority must also support gay marriage and such...in their "true" democracy no state would need to exist because every single human bean would come to the inevitable and dialectically ordained moral consensus that gay communism is the best regime

I'm
and I consider myself a communist

Carl Schmitt.

The demcratic principle by Amadeo Bordiga

>Under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition
So I should support capitalism then since I'm anti-democracy.

>spengler
>ancap
>peterson
>not memes

Yeah, your vote goes to neoserfdom
Power to the elites. I bet you feel all brave and edgy now, going against your best interests.

great men are not bound by time or convention

Attached: Carlyle.jpg (1287x1689, 737K)

Attached: B0A4CA03-6770-4AF1-917E-1305A558B1D8.jpg (1613x2559, 749K)

having Byron as your father is cheating

does it really even need to be critiqued? its literally barbaric.

As long as there is some way to advance in society and as long as incompetence is punished to some degree competent people will be overrepresented at the top.

Democracy with the modern advances of economy, propaganda and global communication has secured the elite in such a position that they are more powerful, and more secure than they have every been and any anarchidgic system would revert to this state, or a worse one, very quickly.

Anything is preferable to anarchism, even this corrupt system, which will collapse on its own in time.

Sheldon S. Wolin - Democracy Incorporated

follow OldBookClub on twitter dot com

Leviathan
Leviathan
Leviathan

Capitalism (the Free Market) is the most democratic system that will ever exist

Based

Attached: pinker-jpg--198384-jpg--pinker-jpg-jpeg.jpg (300x400, 16K)

Based and ASSpilled.

ASSpilled? What kind of ass am I partaking in?

The ASS of ideology.

This. And pure human processing.

Her nose didn’t get her all that far in life.

Having her get married and bear children she didn’t even want, was cheating.

You didn’t even describe anything remotely anarchistic or democratic, you’re just repeating talking point. Do you actually believe that crap?

>Required reading! - Cornel West

Attached: 1565833013760.jpg (399x388, 24K)

More a critique against liberal democracy than the concept of democracy altogether, but still.

Attached: Carl_Schmitt.jpg (274x363, 12K)

No, I'm mostly shitposting.

I am a very anti-democratic writer. Mainly just argue on reddit now because the world is illiterate and will only respond to you if you shout at them. Idk if I can shill my book, but here is a song. =(

youtube.com/watch?v=RvcHzievQSU

Ideology is 100% statism, humans reduced to animals, no rights, all property of the state. You spread the power so thin that nobody can become corrupt. People can't be trusted with money, people hurt themselves with their freedom. It's about altruism, realism, as opposed to idealism. Ignorance is bliss, Occam's razor, that sort of thing.

My arguments/philosophy is clearer in reddit threads, the book 900K+ words, was just a shoujo-ai until I had a bit of a breakdown. Only 200-300k or so is actually about politics, but it's pretty much condensed into one section.

The irony here. I had not known anything about the Ayn Rand quote, I didn't even know the word "statist" exists, and without any irony involved described my own system as altruism, just in pure and earnest honesty. I guess we have two different opinions but somehow came to the same conclusion.

Again, not in any sort of reference to this, but this "altruist cult" is a top result in images. Reading about it, it's ironic because I do argue in favor of cannibalism, or at least repurposing human bodies into something like dog food, or in the absence of dogs just fertilizer, just for pure economy, it's a waste of resources otherwise.

Somehow I got hit with some big irony by circumstance. I came here looking for simple, easy reads, like below harry potter, shorter than that. Quality pulp I guess. Oddly enough saw this thread.

Attached: altruistcult.jpg (1280x720, 170K)

spengler is not a meme.
i'll give you ancap.
peterson isn't on that list what.
so one out of five, nice try.

Oh okay then
This is more fantasy world building. Like Moldbug

“A horse needs food to work, and the farmer is happy to feed him on this accord. The horse does not need to study modernist art or be a living corpse of festering death for as many years as possible long after its utility has been retired by either age or by shame of its feeble birth bearing no semblance to anything other than an omen of death, let alone a horse. Should the horse plow so well that the farmer finds that investing in a sharper plow is a worthy investment, so that the horse might plow more efficiently and the farmer reap a greater crop, then this is a wise decision and a practical one, but if this decision is not a cost effective one as the horse is lazy or inept and would not yield a return on this investment then it is a foolish investment.

There is a difference between responsible, practical farming and blind welfare that amounts to nothing. I am not opposed to proper business, where the farmer is conditioned to make investments that yield him a return, and the fact that socialism often abandons this discretion is why I disparage it so. The argument that the horse and the farmer are equals is the reason why I loathe democracy so, simply because the horse does not know what is best for himself, only what he wants, which is often contrary to the success of the farmer and thus contrary to the wellbeing of the horse who depends on the success of the farmer for his own survival.

It may seem like a caste system to deem some men farmers and some men horses, the farmer should be focused entirely on the success of the farm as opposed to forsaking this responsibility in order to pleasure the horses, so long as the horses continue to perform the work, which by all means can easily be coaxed through both pleasure and pain if need be, and the horses should be aware of this fact and respect it as natural order should always be respected. The horse, on the other hand, should not be bothered with attempting to understand all of the principles required to be a farmer and operate a farm and should instead focus his efforts on improving himself in regards to his nature, which is performing the duties of the horse. The horses can compete with the other horses, but more importantly, the farmers would compete with the other farmers and should they fail to manage their farm properly they reap the seeds of their failure and in a proper capitalist society these farms are repossessed for their debts and hopefully a farmer more so skilled in the craft will be able to sow the seeds of success and avoid the failures of the prior farmer, seeing how this farmer was so skilled or otherwise trained under a skilled farmer who managed to turn such a profit from his own farm that he could purchase another farm all together.” Says Stacy

Just found a random quote, randomly has democracy in it. If this is what you mean by anti-democracy. My writing style is largely rambling and very long winded. If you like this sort of thing. I'm off.

Bump

Imagine arguing on reddit.

please fuck off

Tocqueville is a must-read.

Attached: Tocqueville_1593-01_TP.jpg (300x451, 202K)

Bumping for any left-anarchic/egoist critiques of democracy? I've read Stirner

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy

Eumesvil - Ernst Jünger

The union of egoists is an endorsement for democracy
Not statism specifically, but as a means to gain your property

I just write an essay, create a thread about that essay, and argue with people who come into it. I don't really do anything beyond that. Other than that I take conspiracy content from /pol/ and repost it for points.

I know I should try to find a reasonably popular forum to argue with people about edgy poltical/philosophical arguments. This one (pol) is fucking awful, not that reddit is much better.

People don't really read anything unless you provoke them. Beyond that, on this website, illiterate people really will just ignore your posts if they're too long, shills will ignore them if they're off message, it's hard to hold a legitimate conversation. People mainly like 1 liners. The longer the post, the less likely somebody is going to read it.

Still, people on this website, at least on /pol/ are comparably as stupid as on reddit.

On reddit you can sort of claim a corner for your homeless street preaching then fight anyone who wanders into it. Also, the replies work like email, which is much better. Here it's much harder, not like email, and things disappear. Also, here the character count is very low, 2k on pol, 3k on here, but it's 10k on reddit.

The problem with reddit and likely here as well is the literate douchebags, who just say "This person says this, so you're wrong." It's just a matter of naming books and other bullshit for people who believe themselves to be intelligent. Nobody just raw dogs the argument, they always bring up old writers and shit rather than arguing themselves. They make obscure references rather than making the point themselves. Places like the philosophy reddit where they just circle-jerk and salivate over the pretentious douchebags who get published and get publicity for being "state approved narrative". Just shills for propagandists really, the argument "This man is famous, thus he must be right", is nonsense. That man is famous because he is a state approved propagandist telling people what the state wants them to think, reinforcing their indoctrination and conditioning, reinforcing what they already believe.

Having faith in popular philosophers is like having faith in L. Ron Hubbard or any other popular author. These people are popular because their ideas are agreeable, not because they are valid. Essentially like victim studies.

Still about 1/20 people will actually acknowledge and rebut my arguments on reddit, then I can have a discussion with them over a period of time, which is a better rate than this site(pol). So many 1 liners, non-statements, etc, that having an argument is difficult, let alone the fact that posts disappear.

I'm mainly mom/dad style arguing, where I just speak aggressively and "Know what's right", and that's why I don't like the douchebags who say "This book says this", like I'm going to read a fucking book to understand the context of your argument. Beyond that, citing sources in a field that is entirely subjective, opinionated, and baseless is ridiculous.

Derrida already addressed this. I'm sorry your too dumb to understand that.

Sounds interesting, thanks flutterby

thanks for the recommendation