On the Necessity of Militancy for Democracy

[Rio Cana]

It seems the Soviets did something like this. It was called the Cheka. Too many civilian casualties.

One of its most important functions was the security of revolutionary order, and the fight against counterrevolutionary activity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka

[Geneviev]

Violence should not be used to keep democracy. Protesting peacefully and things like that are necessary, though.

[Elwher]

Two responses to the OP.

First, if there is proof that the election was invalid due to fraud, then of course the perpetrators of that fraud should be removed from office. Fraud, however, does not include making false promises or statements during a campaign; it includes but is not limited to things like miscounts, ballot destruction, multiple voting, and graveyard votes. If the election was valid, though, then if one believes in democracy the people have the right to put in whatever government they want even if it is not in their best interest.

Second, part of democracy to me is freedom of speech. The idea that some ideas need to be shouted down or not allowed to be presented is, by its very nature, undemocratic. If the ideas are actually wrong, reasoned arguments will show that but these counter-arguments can only be made after the original arguments have been expressed.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Two responses to the OP.
Second, part of democracy to me is freedom of speech. The idea that some ideas need to be shouted down or not allowed to be presented is, by its very nature, undemocratic. If the ideas are actually wrong, reasoned arguments will show that but these counter-arguments can only be made after the original arguments have been expressed.

Well, sometimes "reasoned arguments" are not enough to stop the effects of a weaponized, malicious, strategic mass disinformation campaign backed by million dollars of funding and years of researches on that area. Today's existing mobilization strategies can snowball very quickly into an unstoppable momentum, wreak havoc, and then dissipate as fast as it appeared, while leaving significant damages behind.

Without a proper counter-strategy, it is very easy for malign actors –domestic and foreign– to prey on society's most vulnerable elements and trigger discord for their own benefit. Result includes unrepairable polarization of society, collapse of democratic consensus as a method of policy-making, rise of intolerance or extremist ideologies, rise of violence-oriented extreme groups and even independent millitias, mobilization of a portion of the population against another portion of the population (e.g. minorities), prolonged distruption on the economy, weakening or even breakdown of democratic institutions, and rise of opportunistic undemocratic demagogues trying to exploit the chaos.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

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.

Curious that you're willing to accept the mountain of evidence showing heroin is bad yet not the mountain of evidence that non-democracies are 9/10 worse than democracies.

Says a lot about your thought process.

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.

I hate this ridiculous argument.

You realize republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive? The best democracies often are republics.

Democracy isn't a system of governance; it's the process of electing represenitives. Don't bring useless semantics into this.

It seems the Soviets did something like this. It was called the Cheka. Too many civilian casualties.

One of its most important functions was the security of revolutionary order, and the fight against counterrevolutionary activity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka

Violence should not be used to keep democracy. Protesting peacefully and things like that are necessary, though.

Cool.

Never mentioned violence, though. Maybe read the OP next time?

Two responses to the OP.

First, if there is proof that the election was invalid due to fraud, then of course the perpetrators of that fraud should be removed from office. Fraud, however, does not include making false promises or statements during a campaign; it includes but is not limited to things like miscounts, ballot destruction, multiple voting, and graveyard votes. If the election was valid, though, then if one believes in democracy the people have the right to put in whatever government they want even if it is not in their best interest.

Second, part of democracy to me is freedom of speech. The idea that some ideas need to be shouted down or not allowed to be presented is, by its very nature, undemocratic. If the ideas are actually wrong, reasoned arguments will show that but these counter-arguments can only be made after the original arguments have been expressed.

Bro. We live in the Trump era. This is such naive thinking even my past self is cringing.

"Reasoned arguments", Jesus Christ.

[Kowani]

Two responses to the OP.

First, if there is proof that the election was invalid due to fraud, then of course the perpetrators of that fraud should be removed from office. Fraud, however, does not include making false promises or statements during a campaign; it includes but is not limited to things like miscounts, ballot destruction, multiple voting, and graveyard votes. If the election was valid, though, then if one believes in democracy the people have the right to put in whatever government they want even if it is not in their best interest.

Second, part of democracy to me is freedom of speech. The idea that some ideas need to be shouted down or not allowed to be presented is, by its very nature, undemocratic. If the ideas are actually wrong, reasoned arguments will show that but these counter-arguments can only be made after the original arguments have been expressed.

Things that don’t exist: The free marketplace of ideas.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

Curious that you're willing to accept the mountain of evidence showing heroin is bad yet not the mountain of evidence that non-democracies are 9/10 worse than democracies.

Says a lot about your thought process.

By what metric? Something as inane and vague as "more freedom"? Plot twist but not all of us care about that anymore.

[UniversalCommons]

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

Curious that you're willing to accept the mountain of evidence showing heroin is bad yet not the mountain of evidence that non-democracies are 9/10 worse than democracies.

Says a lot about your thought process.

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.

I hate this ridiculous argument.

You realize republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive? The best democracies often are republics.

Democracy isn't a system of governance; it's the process of electing represenitives. Don't bring useless semantics into this.

It seems the Soviets did something like this. It was called the Cheka. Too many civilian casualties.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka

Violence should not be used to keep democracy. Protesting peacefully and things like that are necessary, though.

Cool.

Never mentioned violence, though. Maybe read the OP next time?

Two responses to the OP.

First, if there is proof that the election was invalid due to fraud, then of course the perpetrators of that fraud should be removed from office. Fraud, however, does not include making false promises or statements during a campaign; it includes but is not limited to things like miscounts, ballot destruction, multiple voting, and graveyard votes. If the election was valid, though, then if one believes in democracy the people have the right to put in whatever government they want even if it is not in their best interest.

Second, part of democracy to me is freedom of speech. The idea that some ideas need to be shouted down or not allowed to be presented is, by its very nature, undemocratic. If the ideas are actually wrong, reasoned arguments will show that but these counter-arguments can only be made after the original arguments have been expressed.

Bro. We live in the Trump era. This is such naive thinking even my past self is cringing.

"Reasoned arguments", Jesus Christ.

The definition of democracy is rule by the people. It is not a system of elections or process. The process of elections does not create democracy. You can also have assemblies of people which are democracies which are not based on elections, but common citizenship and rule by the people, i.e. participatory democracy. There is more than one way to have rule by the people.

Voting does not necessarily guarantee full participation of citizens in government. In fact, voting can be easily restricted by government limiting participation by citizens.

Thus you get the statement no voting, no presidents, no kings

This refers to the preference of participation and consensus over voting. Voting should be used in appropriate cases where discussion and contention are needed.

[Fedel]

Enshrined rights and an educated populace will achieve the same goal without the high risk of tyranny that comes along with your recommendation.

[Sundiata]

The Weimar Republic was hardly an effective example of democracy.

[Genivaria]

The Weimar Republic was hardly an effective example of democracy.

The Weimar Republic was also very quick to crack down on left-wing radicals but was very passive if not cooperative towards right-wing radicals.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Weimar Republic was hardly an effective example of democracy.

The Weimar Republic was also very quick to crack down on left-wing radicals but was very passive if not cooperative towards right-wing radicals.

Debatable. There's a strong argument to be made that if the KPD had worked with the SPD they could have largely blocked the NSDAP's gains. But of course Left Unity struck and they refused to work with evil social fascists and a lot of what happened can be blamed on that.

[North German Realm]

The Weimar Republic was also very quick to crack down on left-wing radicals but was very passive if not cooperative towards right-wing radicals.

Debatable. There's a strong argument to be made that if the KPD had worked with the SPD they could have largely blocked the NSDAP's gains. But of course Left Unity struck and they refused to work with evil social fascists and a lot of what happened can be blamed on that.

It's less about late-stage Republic and more about the early years where the communist/socialist protestors and uprising members met much less happy endings than the right wing when they just decided to putsch.

Though on the other hand, the Weimar also passed a lot of reforms that were socialist/labour in nature so uh, there's that?

[Vistulange]

The Weimar Republic was hardly an effective example of democracy.

Nor was the Weimar Republic practicing Streitbare Demokratie, but you are correct in that it wasn't an effective example of democracy. Modern liberal democracies generally don't include armed street gangs beating up people they disagree with as a feature.

The difference, in my opinion, lies in the difference between "electoral democracy" and "liberal democracy", and not between an archaic difference between "democracy" and "republic", the latter of which has already been addressed. Electoral democracies are dime a dozen in the world; liberal democracies, less so. That's a far more meaningful difference than "democracy" and "republic".

[Loben III]

The Weimar Republic was hardly an effective example of democracy.

The Weimar Republic was also very quick to crack down on left-wing radicals but was very passive if not cooperative towards right-wing radicals.

are you implying this was bad?

[Bear Stearns]

This a very sanitized and long-winded of saying "I love democracy but only when my group wins, everyone else is a threat to democracy".

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Curious that you're willing to accept the mountain of evidence showing heroin is bad yet not the mountain of evidence that non-democracies are 9/10 worse than democracies.

Says a lot about your thought process.

By what metric? Something as inane and vague as "more freedom"? Plot twist but not all of us care about that anymore.

By the metric of human rights abuses, which non-democracies are prone to commit.

And yes, I'm aware that democracies can do that too. But in case you haven't noticed that happens to be far less common. Funny how a system run by and for the people is less likely to murder said people.

Curious that you're willing to accept the mountain of evidence showing heroin is bad yet not the mountain of evidence that non-democracies are 9/10 worse than democracies.

Says a lot about your thought process.



I hate this ridiculous argument.

You realize republics and democracies are not mutually exclusive? The best democracies often are republics.

Democracy isn't a system of governance; it's the process of electing represenitives. Don't bring useless semantics into this.




Cool.

Never mentioned violence, though. Maybe read the OP next time?



Bro. We live in the Trump era. This is such naive thinking even my past self is cringing.

"Reasoned arguments", Jesus Christ.

The definition of democracy is rule by the people. It is not a system of elections or process. The process of elections does not create democracy. You can also have assemblies of people which are democracies which are not based on elections, but common citizenship and rule by the people, i.e. participatory democracy. There is more than one way to have rule by the people.

Voting does not necessarily guarantee full participation of citizens in government. In fact, voting can be easily restricted by government limiting participation by citizens.

Thus you get the statement no voting, no presidents, no kings

This refers to the preference of participation and consensus over voting. Voting should be used in appropriate cases where discussion and contention are needed.

Democracy requires elections, dude. How else are the people going to rule? You're being pointlessly semantic here.

Enshrined rights and an educated populace will achieve the same goal without the high risk of tyranny that comes along with your recommendation.

Funny, I don't remember Germany being ruled by tyrants?

The Weimar Republic was hardly an effective example of democracy.

Irregardless, having a democratic system is a step in the right direction. If you want to be nitpicky then every democracy that has ever existed has been flawed.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

The Weimar Republic was also very quick to crack down on left-wing radicals but was very passive if not cooperative towards right-wing radicals.

are you implying this was bad?

Seems more like you're implying working with right-wing radicals is good.

[North German Realm]

This a very sanitized and long-winded of saying "I love democracy but only when my group wins, everyone else is a threat to democracy".

I mean. To an extent. When a group that fundamentally disagrees with the concept of democracy and wants to destroy the democratic order wins an election, it's a threat to democracy.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

This a very sanitized and long-winded of saying "I love democracy but only when my group wins, everyone else is a threat to democracy".

Sorry to burst your narrative, but I don't have a group.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

This a very sanitized and long-winded of saying "I love democracy but only when my group wins, everyone else is a threat to democracy".

I mean. To an extent. When a group that fundamentally disagrees with the concept of democracy and wants to destroy the democratic order wins an election, it's a threat to democracy.

Shh, don't bring logic into this.

[Nuroblav]

Sorry to burst your narrative, but I don't have a group.

Trollzyn the Pragmatic?

[Washington Resistance Army]

By what metric? Something as inane and vague as "more freedom"? Plot twist but not all of us care about that anymore.

By the metric of human rights abuses, which non-democracies are prone to commit.

And yes, I'm aware that democracies can do that too. But in case you haven't noticed that happens to be far less common. Funny how a system run by and for the people is less likely to murder said people.

Human rights don't exist. It's a fantasy that doesn't hold true for much of the human populace on this planet and any and all organizations dedicated to upholding and defending them are toothless and powerless, rendering them moot.

[UniversalCommons]

If you give all citizens the right to join an assembly, it does not require elections the way we do them. Also, there are other mechanisms than elections that can be as effective or better than elections. Often elections counter act effective decisions. In the Athenian style, all citizens were required to join the assembly, then the leaders were elected. With electronic democracy it increases the participatory ability of the citizens, creating an electronic assembly and a physical assembly.

Secondly, many of our decisions which are electorally based are fast decisions where consensus among citizens can lead to better decisions and voting can be used for more contentious decisions. There is often not enough deliberation on issues before voting or a consensus be reached. Voting by its nature assumes conflict between factions. Everything becomes conflicted when everything is voted on.

Thirdly, many of the decisions which are made by voting can be better made by participation from budgeting to reporting road repair. There is an overreliance and assumption that representative government will meet the needs of citizens. The larger the government and the more bureaucratic, the more need there is for citizen participation and oversite.

There is too much abdication of governance to elites who do not fully represent people. We are building democracies with limited representation for the people which may not last.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Sorry to burst your narrative, but I don't have a group.

Trollzyn the Pragmatic?

Shocking, I know. People forming their own opinions instead of molding them to fit into asinine ideologies?

Madness.

By the metric of human rights abuses, which non-democracies are prone to commit.

And yes, I'm aware that democracies can do that too. But in case you haven't noticed that happens to be far less common. Funny how a system run by and for the people is less likely to murder said people.

Human rights don't exist. It's a fantasy that doesn't hold true for much of the human populace on this planet and any and all organizations dedicated to upholding and defending them are toothless and powerless, rendering them moot.

To refute human rights is to stand morally repugnant, and I will not tolerate nor respect anyone who commits themselves to what is essentially another way of saying "the ends justify the means". Such a line of thought leads to mass murder, warmongering, and other vile actions that harm whole swaths of innocent people for no other reason than personal gain.

Have a nice life.

[Washington Resistance Army]

To refute human rights is to stand morally repugnant

No, it's to be able to look at the world and see that shit doesn't exist in practice. Even in the US, how's the constitution treating us? Does it stop gun control, mass spying, assassination of citizens? The answer to all is no.