Mobocracy

[Bucketmaster101]

Hey, didn't know where to put this, but seeing as it is politics related, the politics forum seems like a nice bet.

It seems to me that when people say democracy, generally people see that as a feel good thing. Just the name itself coins up positive thoughts. So my question is how could (i say could) something so "wonderful" lead to mobocracy, the running by the masses, regardless of moral standards? It is an ultimate form of democracy i suppose, but is it really?

- W.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Perhaps learning would be a good place.



It seems to me that when people say democracy, generally people see that as a feel good thing. Just the name itself coins up positive thoughts.


Depends on what sort of democracy you are referring to, I think. I mean, just the principle of people collectively choosing what to do, that's definitely feel-good, in an ideal world, the ballot is the way to get shit done.

However, in practice, democracy is more nuanced and subtle than that. For example, pre-1918, we had a nominally liberal democracy, but women could not vote, and before that in the 19th century, only rich male land-owners. So the first condition of democracy is that it requires universal suffrage, or it is not democracy but an oligarchy.

Second, you need to distinguish between representative democracy (i.e. Westminster, parliaments) and direct democracy (Think referendums with immediate legal force).

Representative democracy within the context of capitalism produces what is effectively an oligarchy not dissimilar to that of the nineteenth century's land owning elites. We simply pick a representative from a list, three of which have a chance of winning, none of which will make any significant economic changes, all of which will continue to passively or in some cases directly allow the continued exploitation of the working class. This is nothing more than letting people pick their hangman, and this kind of democracy isn't feel-good at all, it'd downright depressing.

Direct democracy of emancipated people is what we need.

As to your question about 'mobocracy' I think this is scare-mongering, and is basically an irrational elitist belief. The masses will never run society "regardless of moral considerations", because humans are social animals. No one is to say that people aren't clever enough to manage themselves.

-Alex

[cyu]

There's a whole range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In case like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

[Bucketmaster101]

Cheers for that guys :)

-W