RE Anarchy is Bullshit

A Response to the Punk Patriots video "Anarchy is Bullshit."

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• anarchism

[mauroprovatos]

Is your appearance supposed to be satirical or did u actually grow a beard?

[buddhagem]

@mauroprovatos If my appearance makes you laugh that's great! No real motive behind the beard, though.

[KevinSolway]

I have a question for you re anarchy. If the majority of people democratically decide to physically eliminate some minority (eg, blacks, jews, cyclists, men), is that a case of anarchy (true democracy) or statism? Would not the democratic majority constitute the evil "state"?

[buddhagem]

@KevinSolway Your question is important and it's been addressed by dozens and dozens of anarchists over the years. Minority rights is something anarchists take very seriously. Pay a visit to the anarchist library (online) or even the Anarchist FAQ. But rest assured that no anarchist worth a shit is condoning the "elimination" of anybody. It's not our style and that's not "Democracy" in any sense of the term.

[KevinSolway]

@buddhagem I don't see how the will of the vast majority of people isn't democracy. If 99% of people think it's in the interests of humanity as a whole to eliminate the 1%, by justifying it as self-defence or somesuch, how is that not democracy?

I say it is democracy, but from the point of view of the 1% it would be statism.

[buddhagem]

@KevinSolway I think you're missing a crucial point, though: we should have say in direct proportion to how something affects us; thus if the majority wants to "eliminate" me it affects me more and thus I would have more say in the matter. Proportionately as well as scale I think are important considerations. Taking Stephen Shalom's ideas we would be talking about groups of 50 or less; it's hard to see such problems arising.

[SBRslacker00]

Better beard wins!!!

[dsaint357]

So you condone smashing shit with mask on? Who are those fuckers? They call themselves anarchists.

[vitorhfd]

This is public service. Well done.

[KevinSolway]

@crud4 The advantage of true democracy is that the majority might one day come to feel responsible for the evils which they do. But that would be assuming that the majority are acting consciously - which is probably not the case. If the majority are not acting consciously then they will never feel responsible for the evils which they do.

[crud4]

@KevinSolway Humanity isn't perfect and hence a perfect system is impossible. What is possible is ending the tyranny of the minority. Concentrated wealth controls everything around the world and in the race for profits many a great "evil" is committed on a daily basis. I'd prefer people/workers actually had a say in the process which governs our lives. Of course the 'group' can be wrong but some elite minority ruling mankind is less preferable than direct democracy in my opinion.

[KevinSolway]

@crud4 When it comes to evil, I'm not sure there's much difference between whether it is decided by a small minority or a large majority - it's the same evil.

[crud4]

@KevinSolway Check out the Ash Experiment. It does seem there would have to be some sort of checks and balances even within direct democracy. Complicated issue the issue of human freedom is. The system we have now a small minority decides to kill millions of people in the middle east and we have no say. Which is better? Which is an improvement?

[mauroprovatos]

@buddhagem No man, i just remember you clean shaved (and shaved head) and it struck me.

[KevinSolway]

@buddhagem Bank robbers don't have a lot of "say" about whether they go to jail or not. No matter how much the bank robbers say they'll still be going to jail. Likewise with other minorities which the majority deems to be harmful to society.

People who value truth could be deemed to be harmful criminals by the majority of people, and outlawed for that reason - regardless of how much "say" the "criminals" have. That's when democracy becomes statism.