[googthrowaway42]

The author is a contributor to Jacobin Magazine which according to Wikipedia "has been variously described as democratic socialist, socialist and Marxist" so it would seem you're spot on.

As far as a critique of the actual paper, it seems to be predicated on the idea that democracy and freedom are synonymous when in fact they're orthogonal concepts. You can have tyrannical democratic structures, in fact that's what the founding fathers sought to combat in the original system they laid out which was less democratic than it is now (e.g. only land owners, people who have skin in the game, can vote).

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." – Benjamin Franklin

[anoncake]

You cannot have freedom without democracy (unless of course you're part of the ruling class). When someone else rules over you, you aren't free.

Democracy does not guarantee freedom but it greatly increases the chances and distributes it more equally. Your chance of being "tyrannized" by the majority is less than 50%. A ruling class you aren't part of will tyrannize you.

[TouchyJoe]

> When someone else rules over you, you aren't free.

That is the case in today's so called democracies. Just because you pick your ruler doesn't mean you have any say in the fate of society.

check the video for actual democracy: https://youtu.be/qH43YHaUGyQ

[extradesgo]

See the difference between saying democracy is necessary for freedom and saying that democracy obviates freedom. Parent comment only made claim to the former.

[anoncake]

Nor did I make any claim about our current democracies being democracies (though "no say" is an exaggeration).