Non-democrats in democracy
Neologisms are convenient, I create my share of them. But is “egodemocrat”, that of Eric Thiers, well found? Not only is there a very precise term for what it describes: anarchist. But ‘egodemocrat’ is a decoy, a sneaky, a contradiction in itself. An egodemocrat is indeed not a democrat. He is a solipsist, who associates, at best, with those living in the same shrunken reality as him.
What is the fundamental source of democracy? Equality of votes? Everyone’s right to express themselves? No, these principles exist in other systems, especially in anarchy. The first characteristic of a democracy concerns living together: each individual contingents his conduct to the interest of the greatest number. The majority decision can be debated endlessly but remains applied as long as it is in the majority. Democracy also includes a representative system. Avoiding fights in the streets (or on the networks) involves transferring them to representative assemblies, where the rules are polished.
The species has already been discovered
The egodemocrat, who must be called ‘anarchist’ by his real name, makes fun of all this. No majority opinion can be imposed on him. Its representatives are legitimate only if they state its own discourse, without sparing or adjustment!
Calling him an ‘egodemocrat’ suggests that he is still a democratic citizen, and that as such he deserves the floor like the others. Can we talk with an alien? Sven Ortoli asks with hesitation. Speak yes, always. Translate, agree on words, use neologisms. Try to argue with a conspiracy theorist, if you are a fervent humanist and have nothing better to do with your time. But let him act? The laxity starts there. And a pernicious threat to democracy, which exists only in the minds of its citizens.
Is this a reactionary discourse? On the contrary. Stop the thought police! is my favorite maxim. Opinions are free, even the most perverse. Nevertheless, for them to remain harmless, something more is needed in the head: to agree with the decision of the majority before putting them into practice.
The anarchist is not poisonous by the mere fact of harboring conspiracy ideas. He poisons when these ideas make him obliterate the existence of the collective. He acts as if he were alone in the world. That he is in a group does not change anything because it is his clones. Only the collective is a true diversified opinion.
The anarchist sees himself as a participatory democrat, and this is the pernicious confusion that Éric Thiers maintains. He’s not!! Participation is about using the representative system to promote one’s opinion, to support those who do it. Not the system breakers. We do not participate when we break. We do it for ourselves, for our frustrations, for this part of inhumanity that we hide.
Alien thoughts can settle in all heads. The problem is when humans have deserted.
The egodemocrat fights for values rather than ideas, which makes any compromise impossible.