The user who was saying "fuck democracy" was just trolling in a blahaj meta thread trying to get us defederated. We do support democracy and popular soveriegnty, but that doesn't mean that we recognize bourgeois democracy as legitimate.

Communists and anarchists are VERY pro democracy. We all just see parliamentary democracy with the rich controlling all the avenues for discussion as more of a pretend democracy that channels and wastes the energies of the working people. So maybe that's what this person meant.

I'll just quickly add that democracy should include democracy in your workplace as well as over the resources of our society. Somehow the liberal discussions on democracy ignore how dickheads like Bezos and Musk run huge empires like personal fiefs, often times ringing huge societal costs.

Really depends on what you mean by democracy. There are many different kinds of political organization under the democracy umbrella, some good, some bad. A lot of it comes down to who has the franchise, but there are a lot of other questions to consider beyond that.

Small "d" democracy is fine but in places like the USofA, what we have is voting instead of democracy.

The people you vote for, don't have to do anything they say they'd do, and the worst consequences they can face is maybe loosing their election next year. Except in cases where the people who won their races appoint people into unelected positions and then its pretty much a coin flip whether the next elected candidate to the position appoints somebody else to that unelected position.

And then, there's the majority of times when there are candidates you could vote for but none of them even remotely align with your beliefs or wants for society. So, having a democratic election where you're just voting for something like "the least worst monster" or the "least effective fascist" just doesn't feel worth it.

I'm not for democracy for many reasons.

But as it turns out, you are:

Under capitalism, the rich will fund very militant propaganda to ensure they get the results they want, not to mention the bribing going on to get politicians to do what they want them to do (this isn't to say politicians aren't rich, but the rich are dragons and will hoard wealth without any logic to it).
And democracy isn't even real in the 1st and 2nd world countries most of the time. You vote on parties who make up their program, which they seldom ever follow (if they even have one and if they do, it tends to be so vague you'd think they're describing eldritch horrors beyond human comprehension and lack the words to put it with), have no means of holding them accountable and generally, unless you're pro status quo or pro status quo with even more anti-minority programs, you're not represented.

You immediately recognise that liberal capitalism has shrouded itself in the aura of "Democracy" and has nebulised the term. You are already on the way to killing the liberalism within you and rejecting the bullshit definition of "Democracy" that has been propagandised into all of us.

Furthermore, I genuinely do not believe common people should concern themselves with how complicated running the world is, nor does the average person have the time to even familiarize themselves with one topic adequately, hence why there's not even experts on general topics, but topics within these general topics, as making informed, good decisions requires a metric ton of poop on pig balls of knowledge.

A fair concern, but I think this sells people short. Surely we all have at least a decent working knowledge of our own job, our friends and colleagues, our neighbourhoods, our environment and can have input into these matters democratically at a local level? Could we not recognise at that level that there are people who are incredibly knowledgeable and put them forward to represent us at a higher level?

I'm incredibly pro-democracy (real democracy, obviously, not lib-shit pretend democracy) because I think even if some more educated "elite" experts or whatever could rule better, or w/e, this would fail in the long run. This take might be a bit hot for some here, but lets look at the USSR here. While it was much more democratic than any capitalist country, it was deficient. The local soviets did not actually engage in enough of the decision making and carrying out of decisions, and the party elite too much. Stalin tried to fix this (and ironically has been accused of being undemocratic for this), but ultimately failed. The masses and the party became disconnected. The single biggest factor in the collapse of the USSR was this. The party elites dissolved the USSR against the wishes of the people. The cultural revolution was an attempt to solve this problem - I'd call it a bit of a mixed bag in terms of success, but I think we need to study it deeply so we can do a better one next time. Cuba, from what I know, seems like the example to follow when it comes to democracy and the proper role of the party post revolution.

Basically, the masses HAVE to actually be involved in actual governance. Or else you get a situation where you have a small group running things in the interest of the masses, at first. Often, they do great, and the job they do is approved of by the masses. But with the disconnect, they will fall into revisionism eventually, every time. Like, we have to look at the USSR, which was dissolved undemocratically, that was sabotaged by the head of the CPSU who wasn't even a communist, vs. Cuba, which still exists and whose people just rewrote their constitution, passed that progressive family law, etc.

I'm really drunk right now, so could probably be making this point better. But democracy is the only way to communism. Even something like an enlightened cabal of real ass communists won't work, the masses have to actively be involved. This is, I think, one of the big things studying the history of different attempts at socialism makes evident.