Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · 09-18-2011, 12:56 AM

(09-18-2011 12:43 AM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote: So, if the lynchees decided they didn't want to be lynched and walked away, and the lynchers let them, then it is a democracy?

**Asshole** · 09-18-2011, 12:59 AM

(09-18-2011 12:49 AM)Lazarus Amaru Zion Wrote: yes but your lynch mob fetish is getting annoying

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · (This post was last modified: 09-18-2011 01:04 AM by TheMythOfSisyphus.)

So then democracy doesn't work off majority rule like Shakur said?

**Asshole** · 09-18-2011, 01:05 AM

how isn't it? i don't feel like writing a book

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · 09-18-2011, 01:07 AM

You just told me that the majority loses when the minority doesn't like the decision. I don't understand how that is majority rule.

**Asshole** · 09-18-2011, 01:12 AM

because the minority, if they dislike the majority opinion, leave society and the majority rules.

hurrdurrdurrr facepalm

**shakur420** · 09-18-2011, 01:25 AM

(09-18-2011 12:37 AM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote: Isn't a popular participation in decision making what a lynch mob is? If there are 10 lynchers and 2 lynchees, then there is popular participation is there not?

I assumed the voluntary participation was inferred. So if they volunteer, then it's a fight, not a lynching. If they're equal in numbers/quality of fighters and means (weapons) then it's a fair fight, and yeah would be democratic. But it's not a lynching anymore. "Democratic lynching" is kind of an oxymoron, from my perspective.

**shakur420** · 09-18-2011, 02:45 AM

(09-18-2011 12:35 AM)Lazarus Amaru Zion Wrote: i just dislike the guy as a source. very inconsistent.

You wanna hit me with a PM? Some examples. Or make a thread or something? I'm curious, cause I've gone over criticisms of his work, his ideas, his references. Never found a single thing that holds any weight. And "inconsistent"? That peaks my interests too. It's funny, reading his old stuff, from like the 60s and 70s, it's like the guy's never changed his mind about anything!!! lol, even though he says he has on certain things, but I haven't seen it.

(09-18-2011 12:37 AM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote: Isn't a popular participation in decision making what a lynch mob is? If there are 10 lynchers and 2 lynchees, then there is popular participation is there not?

I assumed that voluntary participation was inferred. So if they volunteer, then it's a fight, not a lynching. If they're equal in numbers/quality of fighters and means (weapons) then it's a fair fight, and yeah would be democratic. But it's not a lynching anymore. "Democratic lynching" is kind of an oxymoron, from my perspective.

(09-18-2011 12:40 AM)Lazarus Amaru Zion Wrote: like you are killing in every post, getting supernatural there

lol, nah man. Remember, I'm turning 29 in a few weeks, I've had a lot of time to think about things. It's not like I started thinking about this shit yesterday. The weed helps too. Getting blitted and sitting on the bus, or just walking, sitting there in class, it's crazy the shit you think about it. HAHA.

(09-18-2011 01:07 AM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote: You just told me that the majority loses when the minority doesn't like the decision. I don't understand how that is majority rule.

He said the minority could secede, and in a truly democratic situation, they would have no obstacle in doing that. They would creep, be autonomous, the majority position would only be applied to that majority group. The majority's position would not be imposed on the minority. That's what "majority rules" means, and how essentially, any republic or parliament functions (when the Republicans hold a majority of seats in the senate, they call the shots and the Democrats are effectively marginalized, for example). It's how they defined "Democracy" to us in school, but it's not Democracy. Imposing the will of the majority on the minority is not democratic, because nowhere, in any dictionary or other credible source will you find "Democracy" defined as the "majority ruling over the minority". Because, the whole "spirit" of Democracy, what we think of when we hear the word is that we have a choice, we have a say in the things that affect our lives. That's the layman's way to describe Democracy, no? If you were asked to describe Democracy to a child, what would you say? That Democracy means "picking a Dear Leader every few years to make everyday decisions for us"? Is that how you would explain it? Of course not.

Everyone knows what Democracy means, you don't need a PhD to define it. It means popular participation in decision-making, or the people having the ability to make decisions about their lives. In a society where there are thousands, millions of people with a political system, that means the participation of those people in that political system. How can republics and parliaments be described as allowing popular participation when elected officials win based on funding, when decisions are made by an elected elite? How can "majority rules" be described as Democracy when the minority, by default, become excluded from decision-making?

It will always be defined in some way as the "people ruling" or something like that. What does that mean? That means, obviously, that the "people" have to be able to make decisions, they need to be involved, right? So, the more involved they are in the political arena, the average people, the people of a society, the more "democratic" we consider them, right? This is how some people justify calling places like Canada, U.S., England "Democracies". I disagree. Just cause you've got more public participation in the political arena then some next country, doesn't make you a Democracy. I can point out a hundred areas where the public has no power over decisions that directly affect their lives in these countries, without even looking it up, anyone can. That can't be a Democracy. But they are more democratic then say, China.

Some people will claim that we have the ability to get involved, to pressure our local politicians, etc. How many of them will listen? England went up in flames, the people have made their demands pretty clear about privatizing the healthcare system (even parts of it), raising tuition fees, cutting social spending instead of military spending, etc. How many politicians give a fuck? Why don't they give a fuck? Because they know that enough of the population will not be mobilized for the next election and they will win based on funding, based on their pandering to wealthy constituents, not to the popular will. This power of the wealthy sector could be severely marginalized if we had the ability to immediately recall our "representatives". We can have referendums or "recall votes" (they just had one in Wisconsin earlier this year, I believe), but who knows how to do that? Can your neighborhood just have a meeting, and recall your MP or whatever? Do they even tell you how to do it? what are the conditions, restrictions, etc. In a Democracy, there would be no restrictions or conditions on public will. The neighborhoods, cities, etc. would just decide and done, your MP is not your MP anymore. Your PM is not your PM anymore. Tomorrow, not 3 years from now when you've moved on and gotten used to shit, or at least, most of the rabble have.

When the wealthy can scare their workers into thinking that voting in their interests will be bad for them, if they don't vote for the Republican candidates, the company's profits will decrease (because of higher corporate taxes, tighter regulation, etc.) and the company will be forced "out of business", when this shit can happen, it forces people to vote against their interests. It's not Democracy. When you're given the choice between healthcare cuts or higher taxes, they force you to vote against your interests. Why don't they give you the option of lower taxes on the poor, higher taxes on the rich, more social spending and less military spending? Why don't they give you that option? You know why? Because the party or candidate that proposes that doesn't get enough campaign funding from the wealthy sector, he's not pandering to them, he's attacking their wealth, playing Robin Hood, so they're not gonna fund him. He's not gonna have the money to have commercials, signs, an enormous, experienced campaign staff calling people, going door to door, organizing meetings, he's not gonna be accepted by any major political party and so he won't get media airplay, he won't be in the televised debate. You won't even know that you can vote for a guy who's willing to give you everything you want, that will actually represent you as much as you can be represented in a republic or parliament. It's not like people don't know this, it's not like it's a big revelation, so you name one politician in their right mind who's gonna campaign on a platform that decreases military spending, taxes on the poor and increases corporate tax, tax on the wealthy and social spending. Name one that would honestly try that. lol, that's not Democracy. But it is exactly how a republic is meant to function.

**TheMythOfSisyphus** · 09-18-2011, 02:52 AM

I fucking love you Shakur. Thank you for clearing this up. Now I can say that I am behind Democracy :3.

**shakur420** · 09-18-2011, 02:54 AM

Thread on British Democracy.
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...-Democracy

Thread on Anarchism, National Socialism, Capitalism, Democracy, Communism and Stalinism/Maoism.
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...-democracy

**YaelTheGreat** · 09-18-2011, 02:54 AM

I agree with Sisyphus. Shakur has the best and most reasonable agruments on almost every subject he posts in. Now I know what democracy is. So, if I seceed will basic laws like not killing others and rape, applying to me?

**shakur420** · 09-18-2011, 03:02 AM

(09-18-2011 02:54 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote: So, if I seceed will basic laws like not killing others and rape, applying to me?

Well, if you were to secede under democratic conditions, if that was allowed, then yeah, the laws of the "old order" per say, wouldn't apply to you. Though, killing others (unjustifiably), raping, etc. would probably not fit into the definition of Democracy. Because the person you're raping is not giving a choice, by definition, right? That's why it's called rape rather than sex. So, that wouldn't be democratic, but yeah, the old laws wouldn't apply to you. It won't happen though, practically, in any society I know about today, where you will be allowed to secede, say the property you own. Like on Family Guy where they become their own country. No one would allow that, cause no one really believes in Democracy. No one with power, anyways.