4 ms·

If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.

• dragonwriter 6y ago
  Mob rule is not anarchy. Arguably, it's one of the risks of democracy that motivates anarchists. (Now, there's a case to be made that anarchy also risks devolving into mob rule by a different path than non-anarchic democracy does, but they still aren’t the same thing.)
  • MR4D 6y ago
    Good point. Mob rule is arguably much more dangerous.
  • coldtea 6y ago
    Mob rule is not anarchism (the ideology). It is however anarchy (the term), which is much older, and used to convey precisely lack of order and mob rule.
    • dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It is however anarchy No, it's ochlocracy; there's a reason the same people who named anarchy made a separate word for it.
      • coldtea 6y ago
        Ochlocracy is mob rule. Anarchy is lack of rule - not the same as anarchism (the ideology and ideal for self-government), as several oppressors can and are still at play in a state of anarchy, or everybody might be fighting each other and there can be constant power shifts... Ancient Greeks used the term with this meaning, not to describe some anarchist utopia. So ochlocracy is like the people turning into a mob carrying pitchforks. They are the law... Anarchy - in the ancient Greek sense - is like there's no state and no all-encompassing rule of law to turn to. It's the "law of the jungle".
  • incompatible 6y ago
    Anarchist movements reject representative democracy, but often want direct democracy, with no delegation of powers to hierarchies of leaders or managers. It seems a bit paradoxical, compared to the stereotype of anarchists rejecting all forms of authority, because direct democracy is likely to lead to arbitrary restrictions imposed according to the whims of the majority. I think the idea is that if you don't like where the majority is going, within a particular community or group, you move to a different group, or found one yourself, so you will be part of a group which is doing what you want.
• logicchains 6y ago
  Anarchy means "no ruler"; it's the opposite of mob rule.
  • mc32 6y ago
    There is never “no ruler”. Someone always emerges who sets the pace, etc. True anarchy can only exist in very low density situations where population is very low and very sparsely settled. Let’s say fewer than 5 people per square mile actual (not average) on good land. One or fewer would be better. Rural Siberia -Yakutiya, Rural Mongolia. Colonial era trappers and such when they were not in town.
    • BLKNSLVR 6y ago
      Beautifully demonstrated in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,... ARTHUR: Yes. DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... ARTHUR: Yes, I see. DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,... ARTHUR: Be quiet! DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major-- ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
    • nybble41 6y ago
      You seem to be confusing "leaders" with "rulers". It's fine to have someone around who "sets the pace" so long as they are willing to leave other people alone who aren't interested in doing things their way. Anarchy is about the absence of power relationships, not maximizing uniformity of roles or social disorder.
      • mc32 6y ago
        I think you’re starting to get into semantics. But I agree that basically the only way to achieve it is is very low density situations where power relationships can’t be manifested. It’d be an idealized primitive culture -technology will produce power relationships. So will density (water rights, hunting rights, fishing rights, etc)
• frequentnapper 6y ago
  More like demagoguery
• BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Isn't mob rule what we have now? Isn't democracy effectively mob rule? Where the mob is the majority - being a majority is how they become the mob.
  • cortesoft 6y ago
    No, we (the United States) have a system that is supposed to protect against mob rule, and why we don't have a pure democracy. This is why we have a constitution that takes more than a simple majority to change. The whole idea of laws being ruled unconstitutional is that there are some things that even the majority can't do.
• throwaway4666 6y ago
  What does 'mob' mean and how does it differ from 'majority'? The fact that the speaker is not part of it, maybe?
  • Viliam1234 6y ago
    In a city with million people, one can organize a mob of thousand people that will try to destroy things or kill specific victims. Despite the power to do harm, they are still a minority. It's just that hurting people is relatively easy, especially if you can quickly organize a large group.