Introduction
At present, one of the chief pillars of government is popular belief in democracy. I would argue it is a fraudulent veneer of legitimacy for government tyranny, but we all learned in school how important elections and legislative assemblies are to society. Entertainment and news media alike reinforce this perception. Simply attacking democracy tends to go nowhere. Even questioning the idea is deemed borderline heresy, if not outright treason.
Socrates
According to Greek philosopher Plato, his mentor Socrates professed to know nothing, and used pointed questions to dismantle the pretended wisdom of others, revealing the emptiness behind their posturing.
The Greek political class didn't like Socrates, so they charged him with impiety and corrupting the youth, then sentenced him to death by poison. It was all quite democratic, too, according to Athenian standards.
We can use his tool of probing questions to undermine faith in the State, but challenging the civil religion of today can be almost as dangerous as it was in Athens some two and a half millennia ago
The education system, media, and cultural traditions all coordinate to inculcate a belief in political legitimacy. Government officials and their offices are supposed to be afforded some measure of respect, regardless of partisan leanings or philosophical disputes. Flags, anthems, and holidays are all held sacred, or at least given ceremonial reverence.
An anarchist faces an uphill battle. Before people are willing to reject political authority, they must be persuaded it is illegitimate. How can we peel away the veneer and help them see the truth?
Why Dialogue?
I understand the desire to do something, but even anarchists can be swayed by the politician's syllogism:
- We must do something.
- This is something.
- Therefore, we must do this.
I suspect this fallacy fuels many examples of propaganda of the deed, but poorly chosen action is often more destructive than inaction. Perhaps this is just my superficial understanding of Taoist philosophy creeping in, but doing "nothing" can do more than you might think.
I advocate rational discourse for persuasion as a more powerful tool. You may never persuade your opponent, but you can present a way for onlookers to reconsider their beliefs. Formal academic debate is often structured around swaying the audience, not the opposing interlocutor. When arguing informally on social media, keep this same principle in mind. The audience is not in a defensive posture. They can take their time to weigh arguments without the pressure of debate or the passion of conflict.
Therefore, be civil, rational, and calm. Ask questions designed to uncover doublethink and reveal cognitive dissonance, but always remember to attack the argument instead of the person making it. I try to maintain a degree of humility when I discuss contentious topics, not that I always succeed by any means. I was once deeply influenced by nationalism and a belief in political legitimacy. That can help me lead others through the wilderness of propaganda, too, if they wish to follow.
Democratic Chestnuts¹
Every time I raise any questions against the status quo, at least one of the following responses is inevitable. Here also are some questions I have asked in response.
"If you don't vote, you can't complain."
How is this not a false choice fallacy as a political system?
I consented to neither the outcome nor the system, so why can I not complain?
"People fought and died for your right to vote!"
- People have fought and died for many causes throughout history. Why should this sanctify anything?
"Let your voice be heard this election day!"
How does voting make my voice heard when I am but one of millions?
How does a popularity contest prove anything?
"We can't trust people to govern themselves!"
If people can't govern themselves, how can some people be fit to govern others?
How can we trust these people who you claim are so incompetent to also wisely select a government over themselves?
"Look, you are represented, whether you like it or not!"
How can these officials represent all of us when we are so diverse as individuals?
How can a politician represent those who voted against them, did not vote, or could not vote?
Where is the agent/principal relationship even between the elected officials and those who voted for them, especially when ballots are secret?
Conclusion
I don't guarantee any of these questions will convince anyone, but you can plant the seed. Like the Biblical Parable of the Sower, should that seed land in the right soil, it will grow in its own time and a new anarchist will blossom. We must also find and encourage the remnant, as Albert Jay Nock described it. We can't change the world, but we can change minds and find allies if we use reason and compassion. Arguing on the internet need not be a waste of time.
Of course, I could be wrong myself. Feel free to ask about any of my own positions, too.
- Chestnut, sense 6b: "something (such as a musical piece or a saying) repeated to the point of staleness"
The Socratic method works only on people with open minds or who are intellectually honest (usually, those go together, but some intellectually honest people can be incredibly stubborn). Those who have already made up their minds will see a Socratic line of questions as a threat to their ideology and run away while firing off some parting shot, usually an ad hominem attack. If you start asking inconvenient questions, don't be surprised if the other person says "I see where this is going, I'm not wasting my time with you." Remember, some ideas are simply unacceptable to them, so asking questions is a "slippery slope" to entertaining the unthinkable. I have documented my own experiences in this matter quite extensively in the editorial section of my WordPress blog, if you are curious about precisely how vicious intellectually dishonest people can be when they are not limited to 240 characters or whatever the limit is on Twiddle. I should warn you, I'm a bit of a shitlord, probably the result of spending a lot of time in the company of Aussies and Kiwis. I still check up on @frot every now and then.
What I've noticed is that society has been oscillating between empiricism and sophistry ever since the days of Socrates. Every time that there is an intellectual enlightenment brought on by empiricism, there is a massive reaction from egotists. Hegelianism, for example, is a repudiation of the scientific method made in response to the scientific and philosophical progress of the 17th and 18th centuries, and while Hegel was a laughingstock in his day, unable to hold a candle to the likes of Locke or Voltaire, his philosophy appeals to egotists, and thus it has lived on. The method of postmodernism is sophistry; Hegel didn't invent it, he merely revived it.
Have a !BEER for your in-depth reply!
The likelihood of persuading is indeed low. That is why social media requires consideration of the silent observers. They can weigh who is being rational and who is being petty, think about things at their own pace, and possibly reconsider their beliefs.
bloody aussies
LOL! Between that scrappy little bird and Bojack (speaking of which, that would make an excellent name for a Wojack of ol' horse-face if it doesn't already exist), your memes practically make themselves. No wonder the Aussies are jealous!
View or trade
BEER.Hey @steampunkkaja, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @jacobtothe for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Of all the chestnuts, I feel like this is the one most likely to get me shot when I respond to it. I usually say something like I don't recall asking those people to fight for me, or They chose to fight, nobody forced them to. Your response is probably a bit safer :)
I don't know. It's always possible to go straight Godwin's Law, too. "Nazi soldiers fought and died for Hitler. Does that make fascism sacred, too?"
lol yeah, might as well dive right in with Hitler since he'll inevitably come up at some point anyway :D
Nah, wait for them to say, "you know who else didn't like democracy? HITLER!" I have seen this happen.
Well if they go there, just counter with something about how Jesus was an extremist zealot hellbent on overthrowing the government and establishing his own monotheistic monarchy :)