Buddhagem on Democracy

[Reconcile7]

Democracy (better known as Majority Rule) doesnt exist anywhere in the world. Thank God.

[TimeTelescope]

@truthadvocate. Don't be silly.

The 1969 war on drugs was a Republican (Nixon) innovation aimed at exactly the people who comprised the democratic "surge" - students, hippies and ethnic minorities.

@wizkid. You're name is soundeing a little ironic right now. In the Soviet Union Stalin systematically eliminated advocates of democracy. Ditto Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Those who own the majority of property want you to hate democracy because it is a peaceful threat to their power.

[wizkid2000]

WOW I knew you were retarded but this takes the cake!!!!!!!

You call yourself an anarchist but like democracy. Democracy is STATISM!!!!

You are a Statist! You and your ilk just want YOUR kinda of statism.

Please stop insulting real anarchist by calling yourself one.

[truthadvocate]

Democracy undermines authority? Is that why the 1960's surge of Democracy caused a war on drugs to begin in 1969?

I think Chomsky and his followers are living in the past. The ruling class today are those in government, privileged to steal, imprison, extort, & assault the rest of us. It also includes the powerful campaign donors and the politicians. Each using each other to benefit themselves at our expense. Why can't you see this?

[guts777]

Isn't Chomsky against all forms of authority? err .. rather against authority that isn't able to justify its own power?

If thats true, he isn't for against the general ideas of corporations and government.

I think the cable news stations..are disconnected with public mindset.. government vs corporations. Corruption / mismanagement etc. the properties we don't like, they exist in organizations of people, no matter what group they belong to.

Anyway I've got the urge to shine Buddhagem's head.

[Vogter2100]

@truthadvocate Becasue it is not true. The corporations are in power not the gvt, and that gopes especiali for USA. If you cant see that you are blind as a bat.

[truthadvocate]

I agree, some corporations have influence on government. But they don't rule the government. They are partners in crime. Government representatives voluntarily exchange political favors for campaign donations, & not just from corporations. In '07 & '08 teacher unions outspent AT&T, Goldman Sacks, WalMart, Microsoft, GE, Chevron, Pfizer, Morgan Stanley, Lockeed Martin, FedEx, Boeing, Merril Lynch, Exon Mobile & Leeman Brothers COMBINED. If you agree to murder someone for money, are you innocent?

[buddhagem]

@Truthadvocate: I'd really be interested to see any credible source on your claim that the teachers union outspent big business; so far my google search only turns up a litany of right-wing websites; not a scholarly source among them. I'd appreciate the source of this claim. Thanks.

[truthadvocate]

The Center for Responsive Politics is a non-profit organization that tracks federal campaign contributions, lobbying activity, and personal financial disclosures of all US Congressmen, the president & top administrators. Labeling them as right wing and not scholarly is an ad hominem attack. But if you want to close your eyes and ears to apposing perspectives that have not lived sheltered lives in left-wing academia, go ahead.

[buddhagem]

@Truthadvocate: I hope you'll re-read my comment. It wasn't an attack at all. Did I mention the "Center for Responsive Politics"? Or did I ask you what your source was? My google search didn't turn up anything to do with the "Center" you mention. If I wanted to close my eyes, I wouldn't have asked you what your source was. Chill.

[truthadvocate]

I'm sensitive to the left wing, right wing put downs. These labels are vague, used to discredit people, & perpetuate the pointless right / left politics.

I don't see why it's hard to believe that the largest labor union in the U.S. with over 3 million members that benefits greatly at our childrens' expense from a coercive monopoly on education wouldn't ruthlessly influence government to keep it that way.

But to satisfy your healthy skepticism I'll try to track down the data.

[buddhagem]

I've searched the site numerous ways and have come up with nothing to suggest that teachers outspent big business. Every search query I've done comes up with 0 results regarding your claim. If you have an actual url please pm it.

[truthadvocate]

@buddhagem, I discovered that teachers unions outspent the 15 corps I listed by reading a conservative magazine. The data came from the Center for Responsive Politics & the National Institute on Money in State Politics. To get a taste, visit opensecretsDOTorg under "Influence and Lobbying" select "Heavy Hitters" click "view full list." They expose both parties. The National Education Assn spent $2,550,147 on federal-level politics alone in the 2008 cycle. Exxon Mobile spent $1,416,064.

[highervis]

Well I read that Nixon was compelled to turn up the war against cannabis users as a response to the hippie movement as he saw a correlation b/w anti-war protesters and marijuana. But it wasn't b/c the protesters were calling for it, it was the opposite.

[seigneurvoland666]

yeah great video buddhagem

[ChannelMikeG]

Democracy undermines confederalsocialist's authority. Therefore, it is bad.

[seigneurvoland666]

lol

[overmind25]

As Thomas Paine who authored Common Sense, argued for land reform, an income tax, an end to the death penalty, universal education, a pension program, and the abolishment of colonial slavery stated, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again."

[overmind25]

Nice video.

[PersianPaladin]

The ruling class actually promote "democracy" as long as it is within THEIR terms. For example, it has to be on the condition that emerging governments sign up to debt-based neo-liberalist systems funded by fractional reserve banking and globalist monetizing of economic sectors.

[larma7]

The elites have NEVER favored democracy!!!

They only like using representative government so they can pay off the politicians (their puppets).

[grungeface87]

These videos are fantastic Buddagem. I only hope their message reaches the numbers required to make a difference.

[buddhagem]

Poor lighting.

[unit023]

This country has voted against its own interests in "democratic" elections time and time again. With the media apparatus we have now it's way to easy to trick large numbers of people at once. I really do fear the tyranny of the majority, especially when the majority is largely brainwashed.

[buddhagem]

I'm glad you quoted "democratic" and I really hope you'll watch the rest of my videos in this series and hopefully even check out the links I've provided. Thanks for the comment.

[seanthedonconsidine]

thx for making this video, i was getting slightly put off by the many anarchists who put down democracy, i found it to be mistaken and pessimistic. i dont really agree with the statement "democracy is the ability to choose your dictator", its false because the people can put into power an individual who cares for them, but it is true in the fact that democracy can be subverted by rigged elections, biased and misleading media converage, and the destruction of the power of the executive branch

[terpis]

Amen.

'Rootin' that mountain down' is a game of inches, of small wins, as well as of keeping an eye on bigger picture stuff.

A small ferinstance: Living in FL, there's an interesting 'Hometown Democracy' movement/referendum looking to localize voter control over developers' pave-the-state SOP.

It would be a disaster in places if impemented, no doubt ('money = political speech' being what it is). But the neighborhood solidarity this could energize is exciting to think about.

My 2 cents.

[AntiArchon]

At some point, as democracy widens and deepens, as the state becomes more active under the influence of the people in doing the things which they would come together to do under anarchy but without the banner of the state, the lines begin to blur. Is this the "withering away of the state"? No, at least in Leninist terms. That conception is utterly opposed to democracy. But it is interesting to surmise at what point the democratic weakening of the state begins to no longer resemble one.

[buddhagem]

Thank you for your many intelligent, positive, and instructive comments. I really appreciate the effort.

[AntiArchon]

Thanks. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say about this subject on your show tonight.

It's a contentious issue. I sympathize with those who fear the "tyranny of the majority," but most of those fears are unfounded, as they contain many false presuppositions and tend to misunderstand the entire point of democracy (people having a say over decisions that impact them). Thus, the moment the two wolves vote to eat the lamb, democracy ceases to exist, so that old canard is unfounded.

[AntiArchon]

That's a strawman of what democracy advocates actually call for. Nobody wants to vote on what color socks you wear. The point is for people to have a say in the decisions that impact on their lives. Currently, we have essentially no say in the most profound decisions, which are made by a minority of wealthy elites. I am immediately suspicious of anyone who tells me that it is dangerous for me to be allowed a say in how my life is shaped. They evidently want others (themselves?) to shape my life.

[DixyHair]

BTW I know this is a it off topic but, have you ever considered doing a video on real world co-ops like Mondragon & Gore-Tex? More than anything else, I've found those examples to be very convincing arguments in favor of the utility of at least small-scale socialism.

If you haven't seen it, type in "Mondragon Experiment" in Google Video, there's an excellent documentary about the Mondragon cooperative, it's just mind-blowing, even though I'm generally skeptical of documentaries in general.

[AntiArchon]

Socialism is people controlling their own lives, rather than having them controlled by a minority of elites. Socialism is democracy by another name. If there is a limit to the scalability of people controlling their own lives, I'm not aware of it, and would be profoundly skeptical if you showed me one. I'd begin looking for the clever wordplay or other trickery, because I flatly refuse to believe that there is such a limit. I am an anarchist.

[DixyHair]

This is all very interesting, but the issue of oppression against minorities was never addressed in either of these videos. If we had total democracy, many places in the American south would have tyrannical laws against racial minorities, homosexuals, atheists & other religious minorities.

Trading one devil for another doesn't seem like the most prudent thing to do, but I'll check out that book anyways.

[AntiArchon]

Defenders of democracy don't advocate the strawman versions that have been placed in your head by the opulent minority who have conditioned you to fear it.

What, do you think such laws are currently prevented by the lack of democracy? There was far less of it when the US had chattel slavery.

No, the more say people have over their lives, the less abuses there will be. More voices means less elitism, by definition, which means a weakening of the very apparatus that enables the laws you mention.

[DixyHair]

I never said that the elite prevented such abuses in the past; however, as bad as things have been (& are), the Bill of Rights, while not perfect, & while it's been pissed on by authority, has still managed to provide a substantial bulwark against tyranny.

If you have a bigoted culture, why wouldn't people oppress the hated minorities?

Also, all I heard in school was how great democracy is, so I hardly see how I've been conditioned to hate it.

[AntiArchon]

There are so many contestable hidden premises in your comment that I don't know where to begin.

Check Buddhagem's sqworl link and the infoshop link therein. Also read section A.2.11.

[buddhagem]

Dixy: It is a series, as I said, and I will get to the "oppression of minorities" Sorry I can't tackle everything in 10 minutes. Tonight on our radio show "The Authority Smashing Hour" I'll be discussing this in more detail also.

[DixyHair]

Fair enough.

[AntiSisyphus]

Do you think the Obamabots who voted in the latest presidential election were "thinking for themselves". If they were, this thinking was not critical thinking.

[coffeebeaner]

I voted for Obama because I wanted to cancel out a Republican vote, especially with all the votes flipped by Rove + gang from Dem to Rep.

I think friendly fascism is better than outright fascism, sry. As far as democracy, I don't think it'll come nonviolently. Get real!

[AntiArchon]

If one is going to vote, and if one cares about their neighbors, then one ought to vote for whichever viable option will treat their neighbors least harshly. Sadly, in the US, "viable" means Republican or Democrat, both of which serve corporate interests above all. Still, empirical evidence (see e.g. Larry Bartels 2004) shows that your neighbors will suffer less under Democrats. That doesn't mean Democrats are good, it just means that in the course of doing bad they'll hurt your neighbors less.

[vdmerwe]

bleurgh i've slowly come to realise that you chomskyan social-anarchists are just social-democrats under a radical guise.

anarchism=voluntaryism and NO MORE

[spartan2600]

what a ridiculous claim. social democracy, although a vast improvement over neo-liberalism, still includes the nation-state as the underpinnings of society, via representative democracy (I would call it alienated democracy).

[vdmerwe]

and buddhagem/mr1001nights both have a hard-on for using the nation-state to achieve social goals.

[spartan2600]

They both clearly support the ultimate abolition of the state, but, as Chomsky says, "no true revolutionary isn't also a reformist." I know they've expressed their opinions on the matter, not sure if it was in a youtube video or what.

[buddhagem]

Thanks for expressing your ignorance of the issue, my position, and the subject matter at hand.

[DixyHair]

Social democracy is corporatism's best friend.

[jrpigg]

This set of videos on democracy is very cool ... and timely. Just last week I got into it w/an online friend about Lippman's foolishness.

This week's radio show seems to be shaping up pretty good. :)

[yadsik]

Is this to say that it is more ideal to engage in participatory democracy over representative democracy? My opinion is that in order to transcend oppression of the elite, the majority must introduce a mode of life in which everywhere the people doing something decide amongst themselves, by consensus what and how it should be done. My question is, should positions of authority exist in such a society? If they do, they should be subject to recall at any time, not every 4 years.

[CaptainFrantic]

Thanks for posting up these vids Buddhagem. Did you get that "hatred of democracy" from my tweet recently. =P

As you know I have pretty strong opinions about the place of democracy in anarchistic thought. I agree that in the context of state reformism, then more democracy *should* mean "better world" however there are severe problems too (fighting the powerful elite propaganda model for one). Anyway, I'm going to wait until the end of this series of vids to comment more comprehensively.

[buddhagem]

Your tweets were a small piece in a larger puzzle of antagonism towards democracy. It's something that I think deserves some serious thought. And once place to start with is how our self-appointed rulers view democracy. The only minority they care to protect is the "minority of the opulent." Something to think about.

[Chomskyan]

I just quoted the same part from Howard's book on facebook :)

[buddhagem]

Also, Democracy is much more than voting. It's engaging, participating in a decision-making process. What is "formal democracy" in our country is essentially ratifying decisions that were already made for us. That's not what the "Crisis of Democracy" is about. Note the changes in attitude toward the government and toward authority in general. Worthwhile to think about from an Anarchist perspective.

[buddhagem]

Thanks for pointing that out, brother. I fixed it and it should now take you to the proper page where you can find a downloadable copy of the "Crisis of Democracy" Very interesting read.

[buddhagem]

I hope you'll read the report and check out some of the links I provided. Democracy undermines authority at all levels. And, as I said, "voting participation" declined during the democratic surge. People worked outside of the state apparatus to get what they wanted. And your second comment is addressed in depth in the commission report. I hope you'll check it out. It's worth reading.

[buddhagem]

I really hope you will read the Commission Report, if you haven't already done so. Again and again they report on how democracy tends to undermine government authority. This of course naturally leads to what you are saying: no government/no state. Ultimately, of course, it's up to you to determine where to spend your efforts. But democracy really does make a difference.

[AlaskanAnarchist]

I wasn't going to bother, but just because you bothered to ask and I respect you and love you as my comrade I'll read the report through. And probably respond with a video. Maybe it'll change my position, who knows, we'll see.

[buddhagem]

The feeling is mutual. One point that interested me was that voting participation during the democratic surge actually went down. That is people utilized other channels/means to get what they wanted.

I'd love to see a video response on this. Thank you so much. Solidarity.

[AlaskanAnarchist]

While I'll freely admit that direct democracy is better than representative government, my objection is that it's still external government with the oppressive trappings that come with it. Today, a minority of the opulent oppresses the majority. Turning that equation on its head isn't the solution in my eyes. I hope the US continuously becomes more democratic than hierarchical, but I think my efforts are better spent on advocating no government instead of better government.

[AntiArchon]

No government is best, of course, but I find it utterly irrational to dismiss the option of improving the world that actually exists. We don't sacrifice our principles by conceding that reality doesn't look the way we'd like it to. We live on a statist planet. Our options for changing it are limited. We can, and should, advocate statelessness. But the statist planet keeps on turning. We should can and should advocate changing those states while they exist.

[AntiArchon]

Also: turning that equation on its head isn't ideal, but it's a damn sight better.

Don't forget, the opulent minority you speak of is not just an empty abstraction, it's a class which has no right to exist (as a class, I don't mean as people; I'm afraid the disclaimer is necessary on YT).

I'd much rather see the working class majority in control, as long as some group must be. Yes, among the flavors of statism, I'm capable of enough nuance to have a preference and not afraid to sound like Marx

[AlaskanAnarchist]

I'm not dismissing the option of improving the world as it exists now, far from it! I don't think we're going to get from here to a stateless society in one magical night of revolution, it's gonna take decades of gradual change with jumps here and there. What I'm cautioning against is fighting for a better state instead of no state. Yes, we have limited options, but I don't think fighting for a new system of control instead of against the current one is preferable.

[AlaskanAnarchist]

Instead, we can build radical fighting unions like anarcho-syndicalists do. We can form voluntary communes and try to work off the statist grid like anarcho-communists. We can practice non-compliance as anarcho-pacifists do. We can practice counter-economics as mutualists and agorists do. All of these things can make the world a better place, and all of them are direct action, not political action.

[AntiArchon]

Yes, building the new world inside the shell of the old.

These two strategies are not incompatible, but are two fronts of the same battle. The way I see it, as the state is made to suck less, and as alternative institutions are implemented to bypass the state, at some point people begin to see that there's no reason for the state any more and they can rather painlessly switch over.

We don't all have to fight on both fronts, of course, but both are allied even if they don't realize it.

[AntiArchon]

As to small scale communes, check out Kropotkin's letter to the proposers of one in 1895 (I believe it was the Clousden commune).

[AntiArchon]

Neither do I.

But suppose I put it to you like this: suppose anarchy were deemed impossible (never mind how, how don't believe it for a moment either, but just play along); what form of state would you prefer?

Surely you're not one of those who are annoyingly incapable of nuance and can't answer that question. There's no need for specifics, but do you at least acknowledge that not all possible states are alike?

My point is that making the state suck less is not incompatible with anarchism.

[AntiArchon]

That should read "I don't believe it for a moment either..."

[Truthisnonexistant]

Glad to see another view to this debate, a view that represents the way I feel.

Great!