On the Necessity of Militancy for Democracy

[UniversalCommons]

Democracy is the expression of the will of the people and many people are quite violent. Thus violent and open protest is quite often one of the key features of a strong democracy. Democracies naturally create conflict. This conflict is often peaceful protest backed by a more violent fringe which people seem to abhor. However, in the struggle for democracy, people must be prepared to act in the "night and fog" to fight democracies enemies. Direct democracy is often more violent than representative democracy for example, because it represents the direct will of the people. When democracy fails it becomes empire, much like Athens moved from the Delian League to the Athenian Empire.

[Liriena]

It's specially attractive if you know how bad it can get if enough people become apathetic and neglectful towards democracy.

If democracy weren't so shitty, people wouldn't neglect it.

It's not democracy that's shitty, though. In my opinion, at least, the issue is that multiple generations have been raised and educated in a way of viewing and doing democracy which is shitty and encourages its neglect... which has proven useful to a certain kind of political class and the economic power behind it.

I would also speculate that free speech is one of democracy's double-edged swords of sorts. In most democracies, while not all acts of political corruption and abuse of power immediately come to light, coverups tend not to be as effective nor as encompassing as they can be in dictatorships. The Chinese government can project an image of incorruptible strength and prosperity in the cultural mainstream because it has such a tight control over the media's and the people's ability to find out and spread the word of the government's misdeeds. But the American government, even if it had a lot of tacit support from private news media, would not be able to protect itself from its own blunders as effectively. So the perceived legitimacy of democratic governments can be a lot more fragile than that of dictatorial ones.

[UniversalCommons]

Free speech is part of the internal need for conflict. It reveals the enemies within who would take apart democracy and lets those inside debate or overcome these enemies.

[Liriena]

Free speech is part of the internal need for conflict. It reveals the enemies within who would take apart democracy and lets those inside debate or overcome these enemies.

Truuuuu

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

No, it isn't.

My entire premise is to protect democracy from undemocratic forces within the legal frameworks of democracy by enshrining certain articles within the national constitution that permit certain authorities to take action to hinder the advance of undemocratic interests. This is not a revolutionary or niche idea. Germany already does this and has done this for a good, long while now.

So I'll ask again: do you consider modern Germany to be a dictatorship?

So what I said, but with a hefty coating of sugar.

It certainly has dictatorial tendencies.

And let me guess, those "dictatorial tendencies" involve suppression of Nazi propaganda filth? I see you're keen on bad faith acting not only here but on other threads as well.

To the Foes List you go!

Democracy is the expression of the will of the people and many people are quite violent. Thus violent and open protest is quite often one of the key features of a strong democracy. Democracies naturally create conflict. This conflict is often peaceful protest backed by a more violent fringe which people seem to abhor. However, in the struggle for democracy, people must be prepared to act in the "night and fog" to fight democracies enemies. Direct democracy is often more violent than representative democracy for example, because it represents the direct will of the people. When democracy fails it becomes empire, much like Athens moved from the Delian League to the Athenian Empire.

I mean... I'm not disagreeing but Militant Democracy has less to do with actual, physical violence and more to do with legally obstructing anti-democracy forces from participating in a democratic system with the intent to dismantle it from within.

[Telconi]

So what I said, but with a hefty coating of sugar.

It certainly has dictatorial tendencies.

And let me guess, those "dictatorial tendencies" involve suppression of Nazi propaganda filth? I see you're keen on bad faith acting not only here but on other threads as well.

To the Foes List you go!

Democracy is the expression of the will of the people and many people are quite violent. Thus violent and open protest is quite often one of the key features of a strong democracy. Democracies naturally create conflict. This conflict is often peaceful protest backed by a more violent fringe which people seem to abhor. However, in the struggle for democracy, people must be prepared to act in the "night and fog" to fight democracies enemies. Direct democracy is often more violent than representative democracy for example, because it represents the direct will of the people. When democracy fails it becomes empire, much like Athens moved from the Delian League to the Athenian Empire.

I mean... I'm not disagreeing but Militant Democracy has less to do with actual, physical violence and more to do with legally obstructing anti-democracy forces from participating in a democratic system with the intent to dismantle it from within.

Ah, someone has disagreed with you, how wicked.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

And let me guess, those "dictatorial tendencies" involve suppression of Nazi propaganda filth? I see you're keen on bad faith acting not only here but on other threads as well.

To the Foes List you go!



I mean... I'm not disagreeing but Militant Democracy has less to do with actual, physical violence and more to do with legally obstructing anti-democracy forces from participating in a democratic system with the intent to dismantle it from within.

Ah, someone has disagreed with you, how wicked.

I disagree with lots of people on here, friend. Hell, I disagree with most of them on something or the other.

Yet I don't block most of them because most of them are capable of making reasonable arguments and don't fall back on logical fallacies. You are not one of them.

[Telconi]

Ah, someone has disagreed with you, how wicked.

I disagree with lots of people on here, friend. Hell, I disagree with most of them on something or the other.

Yet I don't block most of them because most of them are capable of making reasonable arguments and don't fall back on logical fallacies. You are not one of them.

Ah, so we resort to flaming because you didn't foe list me quick enough. Lovely.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I mean, we already have many reforms packages that, if implemented, will help preserve a liberal democratic society against malign influences. Though each democracy have its own uniqueness, vulnerabilities, and differences against one another. Cooperation between the world's democracies in this sector would be really important.

A country’s regulatory environment is critical to deter and mitigate the effects of influence activities. These regulations have increasingly been viewed through a national security lens rather than simple domestic compliance. Strict and transparent campaign finance regulation shielded democracies against foreign political influence and minimized opportunity for elite capture. Regulation with greater transparency and monitoring of social media platforms also mitigated influence activities.

However, openness can serve as a double-edge sword. Russia and China have exploited democratic free speech requirements to pursue their influence activities. One such instance occurred when a UK regulator imposed restrictions on RT, with RT then suing to protect its “free speech.” Similarly, an overly regulated media space, such as strict libel laws in the United Kingdom, can give foreign influence actors legal ground to sue those calling attention to malign influence activities.

Public trust of media also impacts a country’s resilience against foreign influence in the information space. Democracies with high trust in traditional media appear less vulnerable to information manipulation. Germany and Japan have higher trust and more uniformity of view in their media sector; the United Kingdom and Australia have a diversified media ecosystem that is more open to outside influence.

https://www.csis.org/features/counterin ... activities

[Salus Maior]

One of the inherent flaws in the democratic system is that in most democratic systems it can be infiltrated and dismantled from within. This is precisely how the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany managed to come to power: by winning elections and destroying democracy from within using the powers legally prescribed to them. This isn't unique to Fascists, either. There are numerous examples in both the previous and current century of anti-democratic forces infiltrating and bringing down democratic institutions with within. Russia and the United State in particular are fine examples of this occurring in the modern day. Often times these acts are justified as being "the will of the people". After all, the people elected these people (presumably, though not necessarily) and thus it must be their will to remove democracy.

The problem with this argument is assumes the candidate won fair and square (which can dubious) and that the will of the people must inherently be a good thing. I reject both these notions. No, the dismantling of democracy is never in the best interests of the people - even if the people themselves want it. It is therefor my belief that such a loophole or exploit must be annihilated. Democracies, if they are to survive, must not allow anti-democratic forces to infiltrate and dismantle them from within. Undemocratic factions and candidates must be prohibited from participating directly in a democratic government via running for an elected office, and should they be discovered within these hallowed halls of governance they must be rooted out, expelled, and barred from re-entry into them. Democracy is in and of itself the inherent will of the people made manifest; to oppose or obstruct it is to become an enemy of the people, and an enemy of the people should not be permitted to ruler over them.

It is therefor my intent to express not only the necessity of Militant Democracy, but also to praise it as an inherently virtuous thing. Militant Democracy is not a recent invention for it exists in many countries, such as Germany in the form of Streitbare Demokratie. Democracies intend on defending themselves are not new, nor are they alien, nor are they unwelcome. Quite the opposite. They are a necessity for the survival of democracy. We have seen what happens when we allow authoritarians and totalitarians to infiltrate the democratic system. It is the best interests of the people to protect their democratic systems by whatever means necessary and the laws of a democratic government must reflect and permit this. The people have a right to democracy and a right to defend it.

What say ye, NSG? Do you believe in Militant Democracy? Or is OP another fringe-lunatic extremist?

Getting some French Reign of Terror vibes from this.

If the majority of the people are not on your side, as supposedly they're not in this scenario, then it's delusional to say that you're doing something in the name of "the people".

[Northern Davincia]

The entire principle behind democratic government is that people ought to have the government of their choosing.

Thus, maintaining democracy in the face of public opposition is tyrannical and, oddly enough, undemocratic.

Yet the alternative is to allow dictators to rule without question, to allow them to break down the barriers needed to protect the people from their government and thereby opening the door to all manner of atrocities.

And that is reckless and immoral.

This only happens if democrats lose the argument in the court of public opinion. The possible collapse of democracy in the modern west is the result of its own failures, and still it refuses to look inward for its faults. If you wish to preserve democracy, make sure it doesn't stagnate. Extremists only gain ground when the system begins to fail.

[Joohan]

The entire principle behind democratic government is that people ought to have the government of their choosing.

Thus, maintaining democracy in the face of public opposition is tyrannical and, oddly enough, undemocratic.

Yet the alternative is to allow dictators to rule without question, to allow them to break down the barriers needed to protect the people from their government and thereby opening the door to all manner of atrocities.

And that is reckless and immoral.

You have, third positionist, in your sig - and yet you appear to he quite the opponent to authoritarianism.

I understand that 3rd position politics can take a lot of different forms ( I'd argue the Roosevelt's were an American version of 3rd position politics ) - but surely you should be able to follow through on the inherently anti-democratic nature of it is you're proposing and of the 3rd position as a whole.

A democracy which is not allowed to eat it self isnt a democracy.

Mind you I think we should we suppress and denegrate dangerous and degenerate ideas - but let's not pretend as though democracy has any inherent virtue. A democracy which must be kept in by higher authority is an authoritarian state - and there is nothing wrong with that.

[UniversalCommons]

Extremists are always in the wings of any groups. It starts with middle ground people who speak up, then it goes to protestors, then it goes to radicals willing to create problems, then it goes to full on revolutionaries. This is true of both the left and the fight.

It is better to solve problems before you end up with violent protesters and revolutionaries. They tend not to be very intellectual and stick to party lines which are about true belief.

[Page]

Extremists are always in the wings of any groups. It starts with middle ground people who speak up, then it goes to protestors, then it goes to radicals willing to create problems, then it goes to full on revolutionaries. This is true of both the left and the fight.

It is better to solve problems before you end up with violent protesters and revolutionaries. They tend not to be very intellectual and stick to party lines which are about true belief.

People become revolutionaries precisely because the problems are never solved by the system.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious and shouldn't be defended.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious and shouldn't be defended.

Totalitarian neoliberalism actually lifted my country out of a systemic economic crisis, significantly reduced poverty and illiteracy rate, kick off infrastructure development, and maintained economic growth above 5% for decades, so maybe you're not entirely wrong.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious and shouldn't be defended.

This, democracy is tyranny of the most fashionable.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I need proof that democracy has been subverted. Unfortunately, proof is not available until after the fact. So I'm going to be one of those reluctant revolutionaries: I won't be on your side until it's clear you're going to win.

I won't stand in your way, but I won't stand behind you either. "Militant Democracy", fine, if necessary, but no way am I being a foot soldier for it. Dying for a cause is just as dumb as any other way to die.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Democracy is the expression of the will of the people and many people are quite violent. Thus violent and open protest is quite often one of the key features of a strong democracy. Democracies naturally create conflict. This conflict is often peaceful protest backed by a more violent fringe which people seem to abhor. However, in the struggle for democracy, people must be prepared to act in the "night and fog" to fight democracies enemies. Direct democracy is often more violent than representative democracy for example, because it represents the direct will of the people. When democracy fails it becomes empire, much like Athens moved from the Delian League to the Athenian Empire.

Which is why the majority of healthy democracies increasingly adopt regulations and sensible restrictions on campaign and its financing, social media, and protests. If not, it will be very easy for malign players to sow discord, resulting in constant unrest, instability which damages industries and business prospects, rapid polarization towards extremism, establishment of uncontrollable millitia groups, violent conflict in the outer isles, etc.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious and shouldn't be defended.

This, democracy is tyranny of the most fashionable.

It's tyranny of the most popular. And who's most popular changes over time (thus your trite characterization of it as "fashion").

Popularity might be a poor way to choose governments, but the alternative of letting governments remain regardless of how unpopular they become, is much worse. Mugabe was genuinely popular (or "fashionable" if you're comfortable with describing a revolution as "fashion") and there wouldn't be much to say against him if he'd accepted the will of the people and stood down when he was no longer popular.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Democracy is the expression of the will of the people and many people are quite violent. Thus violent and open protest is quite often one of the key features of a strong democracy. Democracies naturally create conflict. This conflict is often peaceful protest backed by a more violent fringe which people seem to abhor. However, in the struggle for democracy, people must be prepared to act in the "night and fog" to fight democracies enemies. Direct democracy is often more violent than representative democracy for example, because it represents the direct will of the people. When democracy fails it becomes empire, much like Athens moved from the Delian League to the Athenian Empire.

Which is why the majority of healthy democracies increasingly adopt regulations and sensible restrictions on campaign and its financing, social media, and protests. If not, it will be very easy for malign players to sow discord, resulting in constant unrest, instability which damages industries and business prospects, rapid polarization towards extremism, establishment of uncontrollable millitia groups, violent conflict in the outer isles, etc.

Protesters should organize their own security, to perform citizen's arrest on any violent elements who use their protest as cover to loot and burn and intimidate citizens. Not to mention murderers, who among the violent elements do the most harm to the cause of protests.

Why should government give any positive regard to protesters who won't make the effort to enforce the law within their own protest? They're all complicit in violence if they won't do anything about it.

[Region of Dwipantara]

This, democracy is tyranny of the most fashionable.

It's tyranny of the most popular. And who's most popular changes over time (thus your trite characterization of it as "fashion").

Popularity might be a poor way to choose governments, but the alternative of letting governments remain regardless of how unpopular they become, is much worse. Mugabe was genuinely popular (or "fashionable" if you're comfortable with describing a revolution as "fashion") and there wouldn't be much to say against him if he'd accepted the will of the people and stood down when he was no longer popular.

Really, the greatest element to democracy is that it allows
open discourse, watchdog institutions, and a marketplace of ideas to flourish. These simply does not exist in an authoritarian state without any procedure for a change in power. Democracy also forced those in power to cater to the people's interests in order to exercise their powers, while autocracies is 100% completely dependent on the interests of the elites. Autocratic systems are also directly dependent on violence and cronyism as a means of power.

Protesters should organize their own security, to perform citizen's arrest on any violent elements who use their protest as cover to loot and burn and intimidate citizens. Not to mention murderers, who among the violent elements do the most harm to the cause of protests.

Why should government give any positive regard to protesters who won't make the effort to enforce the law within their own protest? They're all complicit in violence if they won't do anything about it.

It is even more problematic if there is actually a malign orchestrator that actively coordinate the unrest for their own gains. In the 2019 Indonesian General Elections, violent Islamist riots broke out in the capital following the incumbent's victory. During the chaos, the police arrested a few assassins and terrorists connected to opposition figure. Apparently they have been paid to simultaneously target Indonesia's four most important security and intelligence figures, with the hope of causing a domino effect and spread the chaos nation-wide, and then seize power. Obviously, we cannot allow such things just roll without any restriction whatsoever.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yet the alternative is to allow dictators to rule without question, to allow them to break down the barriers needed to protect the people from their government and thereby opening the door to all manner of atrocities.

And that is reckless and immoral.

You have, third positionist, in your sig - and yet you appear to he quite the opponent to authoritarianism.

I understand that 3rd position politics can take a lot of different forms ( I'd argue the Roosevelt's were an American version of 3rd position politics ) - but surely you should be able to follow through on the inherently anti-democratic nature of it is you're proposing and of the 3rd position as a whole.

A democracy which is not allowed to eat it self isnt a democracy.

Mind you I think we should we suppress and denegrate dangerous and degenerate ideas - but let's not pretend as though democracy has any inherent virtue. A democracy which must be kept in by higher authority is an authoritarian state - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Third Positionism is about economics, not politics.

And why should democracy, by definition, be about permitting it's own destruction? That's an inherently flawed and suicidal perspective. Why fight for democracy if we're just going to let it destroy itself? Just to prove that we're better than the other guys? That's such pointless and shallow flexing that it's straight up idiotic.

Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious and shouldn't be defended.

Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious and shouldn't be defended.

This, democracy is tyranny of the most fashionable.

People who say this tend to have a very large chance of never having lived or even visited a country without democracy, so...

[Washington Resistance Army]

Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious and shouldn't be defended.

This, democracy is tyranny of the most fashionable.

People who say this tend to have a very large chance of never having lived or even visited a country without democracy, so...

What an asinine and useless statement. I've never done heroin either but I can still say it's a bad thing.

[UniversalCommons]

Most systems are not democracies, they are republics which Polybius called a mix of oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy. The systems which we have represent democracy, or simulate democracy. They are more stable and less democratic having turned over large parts of their power to oligarchs and centralized elected officials who are supposed to represent us, but more often represent large groups of people, corporations, social organizations, or interest groups.

In a real sense when we recognize corporate entities and large nonprofits as people, we move towards even more oligarchy. This is how we end up with our current situation.

It is possible to move back towards greater democracy, but this requires more investment in the will of the people, mail in voting, electronic assemblies, and other ways to gather large amounts of people to discuss the issues before citizens. Also, moves towards greater participation in budgeting, participatory budgeting, and other reforms which would allow greater participation. People want more participation in my opinion because we have lost accountability for our government. The oligarchy and monarchy part of republics are growing strong at the expense of the democratic part of republics. Eventually, the supremacy of the citizen over government will have to happen.