4 ms·

Although I don't advocate physical harm to people, I question why it is necessarily undemocratic. Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democra

Although I don't advocate physical harm to people, I question why it is necessarily undemocratic. Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democracy? Is the criminal justice system, supposedly supported by the will of the people in most countries, not exercising violence, but in a controlled and stringent manner through the courts and police? Let us also consider the ideas of structural violence in this discussion. It is often missed because the perpetrator is an entire structure, an abstraction. Just to note, it's interesting to me how your post has lumped "people and property" together so easily, as if one cannot talk about a person without talking about their property too. As much as this is an interesting issue as you say, your post comes across as much more of an endorsement of the prevailing ideologies; the only form of collective action is voting action, and if your goals cannot be reached within those confines then your action must be condemned. As others here have pointed out, doesn't this restrict the capabilities for change significantly in almost every qualitative aspect? Taking the UK by example specifically, the parliament operates a website in which you can submit a petition, and if your petition gathers some specified number of votes (10k? I can't remember) then they will debate the issue. Not a single petition has succeeded to my knowledge. Most petitions are returned with non-answers and restatements of the current position, as if the right course of action is determined by positions rather than knowledge. These people who talk about "mass action" believe (rightly or wrongly) that the current system is compromised, and structurally so. To say that they should sit down and simply vote, perhaps hold up some signs outside of parliament is not only not engaging with their grievances (and possibly correcting them), it's remaining ignorant of the issues they present. It is missing the point.

geezerjay 8y ago
> Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democracy? Yes, quite obviously yes. For starters, violence is obviously a form of oppression and goes agains the rule of law as well as a very long list of rights. It's always amusing how these terrorist organizations actually believed that violence is justified when they see themselves as the ones dishing the beatings instead of taking them.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Perhaps with the definition of anarchy as chaotic (which is a different definition to the left-wing one) and with "mob violence" also being disorganized, you would be right. But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized, and indeed legitimized in the same way (or an even stronger way) than the current states legitimize themselves. The definition of violence does not speak of the law. In fact, to say that the law can't be violent assumes that the law is good. But I'm sure we can both name states and laws which are unjust. If someone unjustly harms you, is that not a form of violence? If violence is oppression, does it not follow that the current state of affairs with widespread structural violence is oppressive, and oppression must be opposed by any means necessary? Again, I'm no advocate of violence, but the idea that it is never justified is only nearly just as ignorant as the idea that it is justified only so long as the state exercises it.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized Nonsense, and that argument is alarmingly pathetic. For starters, it makes absolutely no sense to insinuate that the same majority that outlaws violence would, somehow, contradict themselves and do the exact opposite. And this sort of reasoning is even more pathetic when it's patently obvious that this argument is uses to try to put a thin veil of legitimacy on violent actions performed by extremist groups with absolutely no support in free and democratic societies.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      The majority does not outlaw violence, in fact, the state claims its ability to exercise violence is based on the will of the majority. The majority support the state's use of violence to apprehend and imprison serial killers, don't they? Do you think that only a small minority of people (especially in Europe) would be in favor of the kind of qualitative change that won't come about through voting? My intention isn't to defend those who use violence, it's to say that the state having a monopoly on violence does not make this monopoly just, and furthermore that the state's use of violence is in many instances unjust, and finally that revolutions happen with violence whether you or I like it or not, they occur when a population is so pushed to that extreme, as happened in the monarchy of France, the founding of the U.S. and imperial Russia.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democracy No, in fact, the fact that they are closely associated is one of the classic arguments against, or for only carefully limited versions of, democracy.

geezerjay 8y ago

> Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democracy? Yes, quite obviously yes. For starters, violence is obviously a form of oppression and goes agains the rule of law as well as a very long list of rights. It's always amusing how these terrorist organizations actually believed that violence is justified when they see themselves as the ones dishing the beatings instead of taking them.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Perhaps with the definition of anarchy as chaotic (which is a different definition to the left-wing one) and with "mob violence" also being disorganized, you would be right. But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized, and indeed legitimized in the same way (or an even stronger way) than the current states legitimize themselves. The definition of violence does not speak of the law. In fact, to say that the law can't be violent assumes that the law is good. But I'm sure we can both name states and laws which are unjust. If someone unjustly harms you, is that not a form of violence? If violence is oppression, does it not follow that the current state of affairs with widespread structural violence is oppressive, and oppression must be opposed by any means necessary? Again, I'm no advocate of violence, but the idea that it is never justified is only nearly just as ignorant as the idea that it is justified only so long as the state exercises it.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized Nonsense, and that argument is alarmingly pathetic. For starters, it makes absolutely no sense to insinuate that the same majority that outlaws violence would, somehow, contradict themselves and do the exact opposite. And this sort of reasoning is even more pathetic when it's patently obvious that this argument is uses to try to put a thin veil of legitimacy on violent actions performed by extremist groups with absolutely no support in free and democratic societies.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    The majority does not outlaw violence, in fact, the state claims its ability to exercise violence is based on the will of the majority. The majority support the state's use of violence to apprehend and imprison serial killers, don't they? Do you think that only a small minority of people (especially in Europe) would be in favor of the kind of qualitative change that won't come about through voting? My intention isn't to defend those who use violence, it's to say that the state having a monopoly on violence does not make this monopoly just, and furthermore that the state's use of violence is in many instances unjust, and finally that revolutions happen with violence whether you or I like it or not, they occur when a population is so pushed to that extreme, as happened in the monarchy of France, the founding of the U.S. and imperial Russia.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democracy No, in fact, the fact that they are closely associated is one of the classic arguments against, or for only carefully limited versions of, democracy.