What's wrong with mob rule?

[Kukulofori]

My current guess is nothing, that it's just another buzzword used to scare us.

Am I wrong?

[Ratatosk]

Mobs are unpredictable, unjust, often irrational and easily manipulable. I don't see anything good about mob rule.

[#FF0000]

Yeah. Group psychology's a scary thing. I'll send you some links to some interesting studies when I'm not in class.

[Vendetta]

My current guess is nothing, that it's just another buzzword used to scare us.

Am I wrong?

Yes and no. It may be used as a buzzword, but that doesn't mean mob rule isn't wrong.

[Sendo]

there's nothing wrong with mob rule. States cause far more damage than any mob ever has. The problem is when you people who have been brainwashed by elites to be racist or whatnot, hence lynch mobs.

But had there never been an aristocracy or a slave trade or the rationalization of retention of slave "property" and myths and whatnot, the lynch mobs would have no reason to exist.

Elites use their power to whip up bloodlust in common people, then turn around and use it as proof as to why direct democracy and referendums can't be used: common man is too selfish or evil or stupid.

The word democracy, itself, by the way, means mob rule.

[#FF0000]

there's nothing wrong with mob rule. States cause far more damage than any mob ever has. The problem is when you people who have been brainwashed by elites to be racist or whatnot, hence lynch mobs.

But had there never been an aristocracy or a slave trade or the rationalization of retention of slave "property" and myths and whatnot, the lynch mobs would have no reason to exist.

Elites use their power to whip up bloodlust in common people, then turn around and use it as proof as to why direct democracy and referendums can't be used: common man is too selfish or evil or stupid.

The word democracy, itself, by the way, means mob rule.

Why, of course. No one without a position of power could ever get a mob of people to act irrationally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite).

[Decolonize The Left]

there's nothing wrong with mob rule. States cause far more damage than any mob ever has. The problem is when you people who have been brainwashed by elites to be racist or whatnot, hence lynch mobs.

States have theoretically caused more damage than a lot of things... this doesn't mean these things are great.


But had there never been an aristocracy or a slave trade or the rationalization of retention of slave "property" and myths and whatnot, the lynch mobs would have no reason to exist.

This ignores the question of mob rule in itself. A basic understanding of mob mentality is that mobs are capable of committing highly dangerous, violent, and discriminatory acts which an individual would be less likely to perform.


Elites use their power to whip up bloodlust in common people, then turn around and use it as proof as to why direct democracy and referendums can't be used: common man is too selfish or evil or stupid.

The word democracy, itself, by the way, means mob rule.

No it doesn't. Democracy means "rule of, for, and by, the people." This in no way implies mob rule.

- August

[Kukulofori]

So how do anarchists prevent mob rule?

[Charles Xavier]

The masses should decide their fate not privileged gentlemen. The privileged gentlemen of society would have you believe that the masses are reckless and would cause the downfall of society, which is why "intelligent", restrained, propertied men should be one of the checks and balances in society to prevent the "anarchy" of the masses ruling .

Majority rule is what all us Marxists agree with we want the masses to rule.

[Sendo]

August, do you think I flunked out of high school social studies?

I know what democracy should mean, or what they tell us it means, but it does mean mob rule. "Mob" has been given a negative connotation (it sounds bad) because of anti-democratic attitudes through time.

And as for that cult link, Rorschach. WTF? Talk about non-sequitur.

[ComradeOm]

"All hail the mob, the incarnation of progress"
James Connolly

Not the most profound of posts perhaps but the quote does illustrate just how fundamental mobilising the masses (into what is disdainfully called a "mob") is in socialism. To paraphrase Stalin, I do like my quotes, "No mob, no revolution"

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The original post is confusing. You find no objection to 51% of society asserting itself onto the minority? That's pretty backwards.

[graaaaaagh]

I prefer consensus decision-making whenever possible. But I don't see a problem with (direct) democracy (if consensus is not possible) as opposed to despotism or republicanism (representative democracy).

[Decolonize The Left]

August, do you think I flunked out of high school social studies?

No - but I think you don't understand the terms you're using.


I know what democracy should mean, or what they tell us it means, but it does mean mob rule. "Mob" has been given a negative connotation (it sounds bad) because of anti-democratic attitudes through time.

I'll try this again: democracy does not mean mob rule. Democracy means "a government for, of, and by, the people." This definition in no way implies mob rule.

Now, we can call mob rule a 'democracy,' but it doesn't make it one. See what I mean?

I'll do you one better, "mob rule" actually has a name: ochlocracy. You can read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule). You can see that this is not the same as a democracy.

- August

[ComradeOm]

You find no objection to 51% of society asserting itself onto the minority? That's pretty backwards. That's majority rule


I'll do you one better, "mob rule" actually has a name: ochlocracy. You can read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule). You can see that this is not the same as a democracy'Ochlocracy' is a ridiculous term devised by elitists to justify the undemocratic nature of ancient (and indeed modern) democracies. It supposes that there is some tangible difference between the 'masses' (good) and the 'mob' (bad). In reality the dividing line between the two exists only in the imaginations of those who support the rule of the minority

Really, can you even point to a historical ochlocratic state?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That's majority rule

Which can be just as despotic. It's interesting that you have Bakunin in your signature, considering this discussion.

[Decolonize The Left]

'Ochlocracy' is a ridiculous term devised by elitists to justify the undemocratic nature of ancient (and indeed modern) democracies.

Um.. how can a democracy have an undemocratic nature?

Perhaps you are trying to say that all previous 'democracies' were not such, rather were republics, constitutional monarchies, etc...


It supposes that there is some tangible difference between the 'masses' (good) and the 'mob' (bad). In reality the dividing line between the two exists only in the imaginations of those who support the rule of the minority

No - you fail to understand the difference between the terms. I will simplify the difference for you, though it is easy to understand by reading the wikipedia article found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule).

A democracy is a 'government for, of, and by, the people.' It has a clear form of authority, namely, the democratic decisions of the people. On the other hand, an ochlocracy has no clear form of authority. It is a free for all - otherwise known as 'mob rule.'

You see the difference?


Really, can you even point to a historical ochlocratic state?

This isn't an argument. The term is used to define a certain form of government - namely 'mob rule.'

- August

[ComradeOm]

Which can be just as despoticHmmm, the majority oppressing the minority is as despotic as the minority oppressing the majority? That's a liberal conceit and naturally, as a Marxist, one that I disagree with on a fundamental level


It's interesting that you have Bakunin in your signature, considering this discussionI have Bakunin in my signature because that particular quote effectively summaries everything I object to in anarchism


Um.. how can a democracy have an undemocratic nature?Do you live in a democracy today? Do you believe that its form of government accurately and fairly represents the will of 'the people'? Western 'democratic' governments draw their legitimacy from the majority but are nonetheless tools of the minority. That was the case in the ancient Greek republics and it is the same today


A democracy is a 'government for, of, and by, the people.' It has a clear form of authority, namely, the democratic decisions of the people. On the other hand, an ochlocracy has no clear form of authority. It is a free for all - otherwise known as 'mob rule.'Explain to me the difference between the "democratic decisions of the people" and "mob rule"


The term is used to define a certain form of government - namely 'mob rule.'This is a government that has never existed save in hypothetical warnings about devolving decision making to the masses. It is, to quote the OP, simply another buzzword used to scare us

[Decolonize The Left]

Do you live in a democracy today?

No. I never said I did.


Do you believe that its form of government accurately and fairly represents the will of 'the people'?

No. I never said I did.


Western 'democratic' governments draw their legitimacy from the majority but are nonetheless tools of the minority. That was the case in the ancient Greek republics and it is the same today

This is correct.


Explain to me the difference between the "democratic decisions of the people" and "mob rule"

The former is engaged through discussion, debate, and consensus. The latter has no distinct form of decision making, and is subject to might makes right.


This is a government that has never existed save in hypothetical warnings about devolving decision making to the masses. It is, to quote the OP, simply another buzzword used to scare us

No, no it isn't. It is a poorly defined, completely dangerous, form of organization. It has no clear form of authority and is highly likely to devolve into reactionary action.

- August

[ComradeOm]

The former is engaged through discussion, debate, and consensus. The latter has no distinct form of decision making, and is subject to might makes rightSo... anarchy?


No, no it isn't. It is a poorly defined, completely dangerous, form of organizationIn addition it is completely hypothetical. Unless you can give a single historical example of this 'government'

[cop an Attitude]

people sometimes associate mob rule with a people's revlotuion which is not accurate. But I find mod ruling to be unruly and often easy to find scapegoats.

[#FF0000]

So... anarchy?

NO. Mob Rule is not anarchy. Anarchists do not recognize the right of the majority to impose its will on the minority.


In addition it is completely hypothetical. Unless you can give a single historical example of this 'government'

Are you kidding? Do you know anything about group psychology? We know how people act in mobs, so it's pretty easy to figure out what mob rule would be like.

[Yehuda Stern]

A week ago, Jewish mobs in Accra were going around beating Palestinians and murdering some of them. Strangely, a socialist government has yet to take power. Then again, according to some people, Zionism is already socialist.

[#FF0000]

A week ago, Jewish mobs in Accra were going around beating Palestinians and murdering some of them.

Totally justified, so long as there were more being doing the beating than getting beat.

That would be despotism. :mellow:

[Decolonize The Left]

So... anarchy?

In addition it is completely hypothetical. Unless you can give a single historical example of this 'government'

Rorschach covered this well.

- August

[Yehuda Stern]

Totally justified, so long as there were more being doing the beating than getting beat.

They're working on it. Which I suppose means it's a "democratic revolution"?

[ComradeOm]

NO. Mob Rule is not anarchyThat's what elitists maintain. Its also what they have in mind when they speak of 'ochlocracy'


Anarchists do not recognize the right of the majority to impose its will on the minoritySome don't. Which is another discussion altogether


Are you kidding? Do you know anything about group psychology? We know how people act in mobs, so it's pretty easy to figure out what mob rule would be like.Yet in all of human history you cannot give me an example of a 'government of the mob'. Ochlocracy is bullshit


A week ago, Jewish mobs in Accra were going around beating Palestinians and murdering some of them. Strangely, a socialist government has yet to take powerYet would you be complaining if this were a mob of workers beating and looting capitalists? As in Russia 1917

The masses (incidentally I do hate using that term) are not always right, that much is obvious, but that is no excuse for making facile and entirely artificial distinctions between good and bad masses

[Yehuda Stern]

Yet would you be complaining if this were a mob of workers beating and looting capitalists? As in Russia 1917No, but I don't think I have to explain to why that's different. I was just trying to say that it's very stupid to claim that mobs are an expression of democracy when more often than not they are used to oppress minorities (Jews in Russia, Blacks in America, Palestinians in Israel) and enforce other reactionary policies.

[#FF0000]

That's what elitists maintain. Its also what they have in mind when they speak of 'ochlocracy'

Yeah, but that isn't anarchy. So why argue using their flawed terminology?



Yet in all of human history you cannot give me an example of a 'government of the mob'. Ochlocracy is bullshit

I can give you plenty of them. Just about every period of lawlessness in history has been mob rule. The thing is, mob rule does not stay mob rule. It quickly evolves from "government of the mob" into the purest form of the State; rule of whoever's got the biggest stick.


Yet would you be complaining if this were a mob of workers beating and looting capitalists? As in Russia 1917

I don't know. Would you be complaining if this were a mob of racists beating ethnic minorities? as in Australia 2005?


The masses (incidentally I do hate using that term) are not always right, that much is obvious, but that is no excuse for making facile and entirely artificial distinctions between good and bad masses

You're the only one I see doing this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's nice to see here a bit of obsession with words. ;)

Seriously, consider popularizing demarchy (if you're a fan of random sortition), demokratia, and respublicanism (deliberately "mispelled" to emphasize the original meaning "public thing/matter").

[ComradeOm]

Yeah, but that isn't anarchy? So why argue using their flawed terminology?That was exactly my point - the 'mob' is an inaccurate label used by ruling minorities to slander demonstrations of the majority

(Of course I also find it delightfully ironic to hear supposed anarchists employ the exact same slurs that are often employed by their critics)


I can give you plenty of them. Just about every period of lawlessness in history has been mob rule. The thing is, mob rule does not stay mob ruleSo it is not a viable form of government akin to democracy, autocracy, plutocracy, noocracy, theocracy, or pretty much any other form of -cracy?

But again, I'm interested in specific historical examples. If only to see what form this 'government' would take


I don't know. Would you be complaining if this were a mob of racists beating ethnic minorities? as in Australia 2005?Of course. Why on earth wouldn't I? :confused:

I have never pretended that there is something inherently revolutionary or just in the mob/mass. There is obviously a world of difference - in motivation, class composition, etc etc - between a mob of women marching on Versailles and a mob smashing Jewish shop windows. What I accept however is that they are both mobs. I do not feel the need to argue that the first is an entirely different phenomena

I'm beginning to feel that, once again, ideologies are getting in the way here. You refer to the state in your above post which reminds me of many, many discussions that I've had with anarchists on that particular subject. Once again a more nuanced version (ie, the state may takes the form of the ruling class) comes up against a fairly rigid theory (the state, in whatever form, is bad)


You're the only one I see doing this.Huh? So you accept that there is no distinction between democracy and 'ochlocracy'? Because I'm not the one applying arbitrary standards as to what distinguishes a mob from the revolutionary masses

[Charles Xavier]

Consensus decision making is bankrupt and anti-worker as the boss will never agree to give any concessions to the working class. Which is why democracy works. When a decision is made, we are bound to it.

[Sendo]

"Mob" comes from "mobile vulgus". So by August West's wikipedia link he put out, it becomes clear how right I am.

Only someone who does not believe in democracy would ever use such a term as the "movable simpletons". Ochlacoracy was only coined because "democracy" became embraced by its believers and lost its value as an insult, much the way "queer" is hardly offensive anymore.

So to that end, I am reclaiming "mob" in addition to continuing the reclamation of "democracy".

[#FF0000]

~~words~~

Ahhh. I think I completely misunderstood you, ComradeOm. I don't believe that mobs are inherently revolutionary or reactionary. They're just a fact of history. Every revolution in history had mobs involved with it. I thought you were arguing that mob rule was good and should be a permanent form of social organization.


Consensus decision making is bankrupt and anti-worker as the boss will never agree to give any concessions to the working class. Which is why democracy works. When a decision is made, we are bound to it.

1. Those who support consensus as a mode of decision making don't support using it under capitalism. It's not even possible, as the aims of the bosses and workers are totally opposed.

2. What suggests to you that people would not be bound to a decision made by consensus?


"Mob" comes from "mobile vulgus". So by August West's wikipedia link he put out, it becomes clear how right I am.

Only someone who does not believe in democracy would ever use such a term as the "movable simpletons". Ochlacoracy was only coined because "democracy" became embraced by its believers and lost its value as an insult, much the way "queer" is hardly offensive anymore.

So to that end, I am reclaiming "mob" in addition to continuing the reclamation of "democracy".


Nevermind where the term "mob rule" came from. Are you telling me that mobs of people are rational, democratic, and fair? For the last time, do any of you know anything about group psychology? Here's something basic that you should all know. It's a concept called deindividuation. Basically, it's what happens to people when they are in groups or mobs. What happens when people go through deindividuation is that their inhibitions are lowered, and they become more impulsive, reckless, dangerous, and much less likely to act according to reason, social norms, or even personal morality.

Secondly, there's another concept, which I can't remember the name of. It is what happens when an individual watches another individual do something that was previously thought too difficult, which leads to the individual becoming more inclined to copy the act. I believe it is called disinhibition, but I might be wrong.

So here we have two facts of psychology. First, that people in mobs are less inhibited than singular individuals. Secondly, that individuals are more likely to do something if they see someone else do it.

With these two facts in mind, I don't believe how it is even possible to believe that mob rule is stable, or has anything to do with imposing the will of the people on the elites. Mob rule in fact only pushes the whim of the mob onto those outside of it. There is nothing democratic about it.