All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
13:45
Debate with an Angry Anarchist in #Totnes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Right, so before we start, what's your name, sir?
Dave.
Dave.
Dave, nice to meet you, Dave.
How would you describe your politics?
I'm an anarchist.
Right.
So you're, uh, you're what?
Would you agree that that's a form of communism?
No.
Why not?
Because I don't believe in equality of distribution necessarily.
I believe that market systems can be an equal form of distribution.
Really, that's really interesting.
How could they be an equal form if they're done individually?
Well, for instance, you might have somebody who's living on a relatively geographically remote place.
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I've got the summary.
It's all the same.
I'm wearing some.
Yeah, you could have someone who's living in a geographically remote place.
It doesn't make any sense for them to have their products taken off them in order to be distributed totally equally.
As long as the fundamental principle is that people have to have enough to live and that society is capable and welcome to redistribute when it's clearly unfair, then I don't see that there's anything wrong with the market system.
How can anarchy facilitate that, though?
Well, anarchism is just the principle that people have the right to do what they want to do, providing it doesn't hurt other people.
That sounds like liberalism to me.
It may to you.
It's an extreme form of liberalism, some have said, but that's not how I interpret it.
Well, no, that's an interesting way of putting it, an extreme form of liberalism, because I think the main drive behind liberalism is to give the individual self-determination.
I think that's all you're doing.
The individual has self-determination, yeah.
Yeah.
But the question is then, how do you maintain law and order?
By social organisation.
I mean, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
If someone commits a crime, then you have to act to deal with that in a positive way.
I mean, it's not necessarily about imprisoning people.
You have to recognise that if someone's hurting someone else, it's probably because they're ill.
But wouldn't you need a police force to investigate that sort of thing?
You might have a community-based force that would do that sort of role.
It would have to be elected by the whole of the population.
But I think that's actually how we run our police forces in local areas.
No, no, it's not.
Well, the police, they're not the police.
They're not elected, are they?
Well, no, they train.
They go and train to become one.
That's not relevant to how they're picked.
That's not relevant.
Well, no, it's volunteers.
Yeah, they're still not relevant, though.
I mean, we're talking about, I'm talking about election.
I'm talking about basing it on what people want.
Would the people standing also not be volunteers?
Yeah, they would have to be volunteers, of course.
So the only real difference I can see here is that you'd like an election on anyone who was volunteering to become a policeman.
Well, a consensus principle.
But this is a very specific point.
Yeah, no, no.
But the thing is, I'm not saying it doesn't need to be discussed, because I think there might be merit to that.
Because I agree with you that there are definitely some policemen who are doing it for the power and not for the responsibility.
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Lord Acton was completely correct.
And so it's one of those things where I agree that we're close to Lord Acton, but it's not Lord Octon.
Lord Acton said.
Problems are power corrupts and absolutely.
And power has a tendency to corrupt.
That tendency, yeah.
Sorry, yeah.
Good correction.
But I do agree with you that there's definitely a need for accountability.
And I do think that's actually really interesting, voting for the volunteers.
So speaking about accountability, what makes it okay for you to say the things that you've said when it comes to normalising rape?
my free speech as an Englishman?
I don't think that.
What about accountability for your free speech as an Englishman?
You are right here holding me accountable.
Yes, I am.
And the rest of the anti-fascist protesters here are also, and that's because they don't want to hear those things.
They're an anti-presenters.
No, the anti-fascist protesters.
They're kind of fascist, though.
No, they're anti-fascist because you're a fascist.
No, free speech, if it hurts someone, has to be restricted to a certain extent.
Do you want to restrict free speech?
If it hurts someone, yes.
What hurt has been done?
Well, you're normalising rape.
How in anarchy are you going to restrict free speech?
By a community organisation.
So bullying?
No.
Mob rule.
No, no, not mob raw.
It would have to be organized on a consensus basis, so everybody would have to be involved.
Self-government.
Community self-government.
But the government is made up of citizens of this country.
No, well, it's not, though, is it?
It's made up of rich people educated in Eaton and Harrow.
Yeah, but they're still citizens of this country.
That may be, that's not really relevant to the point, is it?
Well, yeah, because what you're describing is you need a government to make anarchy work.
A government which is controlled by the people and organized by the people.
Well, now that's interesting.
Everyone, all the people, not just a small minority, but voters, as most of the things that you support.
For instance, the League vote.
Or for instance, the League vote.
It was a very small minority.
It was a very small majority.
And a minority of the population.
Out of all the voters, you got a majority of the votes.
That doesn't mean it should be pushed through.
Democracy means the voice of the people.
Yeah, but that's not the voice of the people.
It's not people in action.
It's the voice of a very small majority of voters and a minority of the population.
So it's not to abstain from voting?
Of course they're allowed to abstain from voting.
It's the dictatorship of majority rule.
And as we can see, the election, the referendum was incredibly badly written.
Constitutionalism.
We don't actually have constitutionalism.
We don't have a constitutional.
We have a historic constitution.
We have Magna Carta.
It's not actually a constitution in this country.
It's not legally binding.
Magna Carta isn't part of UK law.
We don't have a constitution.
We have Bill of Rights since 1689.
Like, do you not know any of this stuff?
I don't know.
You may know something that I don't know, yeah.
Well, yeah, but we have a long historic tradition of constitutionalism.
We actually invented the idea.
The point is that that's not relevant.
All you've done is taken this off to a different point.
It's not relevant.
No, it's not relevant.
Well, that's how we keep governments accountable.
That's how we keep them from becoming a government.
They're not accountable, though.
They've pushed through various things over the last 20 years.
The Iraq war, austerity, universal credit.
They've pushed through many things that were opposed by the majority of the population.
So we're not accountable.
How do we get Tony Blair in jail?
I would very much like to see Tony Blair in jail.
I would also like to see Theresa May and Jail.
I also think that you should be in fucking jail.
I also think you should be in jail.
Why should I be in jail?
I've normalised rape.
No, I haven't.
You have, and you used a racial slur.
And I refuse to apologise for it.
A racial slur which is rooted in slavery.
I'm not going to apologise for being naughty to Nazis.
To hell with them.
Why are you defending them?
You're a joke.
Why are we defending the Paula?
You are absolutely a joke.
You are supporting Nazis.
The UKIP party has close relationships with the far right.
No, they don't.
They're the only party in the country that prevent the far right from joining.
Yes, really.
No, the anarchist party is the only party in the country that should support.
The anarchist party isn't fit for government because they hate government.
No, we don't hate government.
We are in favour of community self-organisation.
But it's not going to happen, is it?
Let's be honest.
Well, that's your opinion.
That's your opinion.
Why do you think it's not going to happen?
Because I think that the government will stop you from what I guess would sound like a revolt.
Well, I think if everybody is in favour of something, and I think if everybody opposes the government, which it seems that they're getting very close to doing, then I think that, yeah, revolution is possible.
What do you do with the people who oppose the revolution?
Well, they have to, I mean...
They have to be shot.
No, it depends on the circumstances.
You've got a machine gun on your top.
Yeah, it's tongue-in-cheek.
It's tongue-in-cheek.
Oh, it's a joke when you do it, but not when I do it.
Well, no.
They're cutting the badges.
It's okay when you do it.
This is the problem that we have with you.
You're a big fucking parliament.
Let's have a wait a minute.
If you ask me, no, if you ask me the question, the simple answer is that since they're culling badgers and they're killing a lot of people, the point is to make the point that the rich people are the people who are causing that and who are pursuing that.
And if you're going to cull anyone, probably better to cull the rich than the badgers because they're the real issue.
I don't think we should.
I'm not in favour of genocide.
No, I'm not in the field.
Oh, you're not in favour of genocide.
I would never be in favour of supporting state violence.
But what are we going to do about the rich then?
Well, the rich need to have their money redistributed.
But that's going to involve state violence?
Not necessarily.
What do you mean?
You think they're just going to give it away?
Community self-defense.
Hang on, mate.
Hang on, come on.
Community self-organisation.
If you have a vast mass of people, look at the 1990s.
Look at Eastern Europe.
If you have a vast mass of people, you can have a Velvet Revolution and you can redistribute money.
They're not just going to give their property away.
You're going to have to take it by force.
Obviously, if there's a case of self-defense, then there's a case of self-defense.
But they're defending themselves from people trying to steal their stuff.
It's not their stuff.
It's not their property.
All property is theft.
Right.
I disagree.
I'm not an anarchist.
Fuck off.
You don't have a job, do you?
I do have a job, actually.
I have two zero hours contracts.
Oh, that sucks.
No, that's pretty crap.
Yeah, no, that sounds awful.
I actually really hate the zero-hour contract thing.
I hate what the Tories are doing.
Yeah, I'm sure you do.
Of course I do.
I'm not a Tory.
No, you're a UKIP supporter.
You're a UKIP MEP.
Well, I'm a candidate, but thank you for thinking I'll win.
Candidate.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm a Tory.
I'm obviously not a Tory.
No, seriously, look.
Do you have any policies?
Yes, loads.
Would you like to tell me one?
I'd like to leave the European Union.
You'd like to leave the European Union.
And what else?
I'd like free speech in this country.
I'd like to erase group rights in this country as well.
Erase group rights.
What does that mean exactly?
It means politicising people whether they like it or not.
And what exactly is it?
Just like you're doing with the people who are abstaining from the vote, in fact.
Because to say that, like, 17.4 million out of the 36 million who voted, you're saying, well, what about the people who didn't vote?
Well, they chose not to become political.
They chose that.
You don't have a say over them.
Don't you have a say over them?
I do have a say on how...
Well, I don't even actually have a say on how democracy is organised in this country, but I believe that we should have a say on how democracy is organised in this country.
And I don't believe that majority, a very slim majority, is one that should be pushed through, especially when the referendum was so incredibly badly worded.
I believe we should have another vote.
What do you like about the European Union?
Don't particularly like the European Union.
It's somewhat more left-wing than the UK.
It's neoliberal.
I don't favour any state.
Or any association of states.
Why would you not want to reduce the size of states in principle, though?
Well, because the Parliament, the power that we have in this country is associated with a much smaller group of rich people than it is in the EU.
Yeah, but no, it's particularly in favour of it.
You're shifting to something where you feel that you have a strong basis of support.
But the fact that Mary is, I'm not even particularly pro or anti-the EU.
I didn't vote in the referendum myself.
If I was an anarchist, I'd think the EU was the worst thing that could happen to this country.
Because it's an increasingly big state.
They want to create a supernova.
But it is also decentralised.
More decentralised in the state that we have in this country.
It's centralised.
It is.
I've been there.
It's really centralised.
When you have every nation in the association has a veto over a decision, that sounds like decentralization to me.
No, that's the opposite.
Decentralisation would be each nation being autonomous and making their own decisions.
I would like devolution from London.
If a decision affects the whole of the union, then every person in that union should have a right to decide on it.
Yeah, but they don't.
No.
You don't even get to vote.
You don't.
That's an aspect of a system that we have in this country as well as most countries.
Yeah, but you've got less control within the European Union.
I mean, wouldn't you be afraid of the control?
I don't really agree, personally, but there you go.
That's your opinion.
What control do you have over the European Commission?
I mean, I could vote for an MEP.
Yeah, but the MEPs, listen, the MEPs can't propose or repeal legislation.
All you're doing is shifting this onto debate about the EU.
And the fact that I don't actually care about the EU.
What my opinion is I'm in favour of total democracy, like total anarchist, self-organised democracy.
So that means that everybody gets a right to a decision.
Everybody gets a right to a veto over a decision that affects them.
They have the right to control their own lives.
That's what I'm in favour of.
That's your opinion.
That doesn't surprise me that you have that opinion because you are a white dominant man who's in favour of sexual race.
Dominant man.
Fascism.
You seem to be a white supremacist, sir.
I'm not a white supremacist.
You seem to think that white people are better than non-white people.
Why is that?
What would make you think that?
Because you're calling me a white, dominant man.
You don't know anything about what's happening.
We have a system in this country which intentionally favours white dominant men.
No, we don't.
Yes, we do.
No, we don't.
Yes, we do.
How does Sajid Javid end up being an important person in the Conservative?
Because he's really fucking right-wing.
Because he's a white man, right?
No, because he's a really right-wing man.
So it's not about race, is it?
Sometimes it's about race.
We have a structurally racist system.
How is Gina Miller a pro-Remaine campaigner?
You can cherry-pick examples and use that to disprove your point.
You can't say that this is a white supremacist system if there are non-white people doing it.
You can actually say it was a white supremacist system.
It's a structurally racist system.
Well, I don't agree with that either.
Well, you may not discuss it.
How is it structurally racist?
It's structurally racist.
Oh, for fuck's sake, this is bullshit.
You can't explain it.
You can't explain it.
You're a prick.
You can't explain it.
Because you're a prick, mate.
Everyone knows.
That's just an argument's popularity.
It's an argument.
Under pressure.
You're getting angry because you don't understand the things you're talking about.
No, no, I'm getting angry because I'm being drawn into a debate which is becoming increasingly elitist.
So people don't know what's going on.
No, no, no.
You don't know what you're saying.
And you can just keep changing the state.
Is that all you're talking about?
The important point is that people have to understand.
You're getting angry because you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm not angry.
You've got sense.
No, I'm not.
You are very angry because you don't know what you're talking about.
The European Union is awful.
It's the antithesis.
Change it to a subject.
Change it to a subject you think you've got control about.
You've got nothing.
Should we talk about your rape?
What you said about rape?
Yeah.
You would cave under pressure.
Yeah, it's a joke.
You would cave under pressure.
So you could be a rapist.
No one's got that much peer.
Yeah.
What about your joke?
Your joke's okay, but my joke's not.
My joke is about raising awareness of the fact that the rich oppressed.
Your joke was about normalising.
Murder is worse than rape was aware of it.
Your joke's about normalizing murder.
We already have murder in this country.
People die all the time in this country.
We have thousands of people under a system and universal credit who are being oppressed day by day.
People committing suicide because they've got no money left.
That's the reality.
We already have the same thing.
It's murdering a joke about murder.
No, I think it's okay.
I think it's important to raise the debate.
It's not okay to joke about murder.
I think it's important to raise.
It's not okay to joke about murder.
No, it's not.
But you're doing it on your shirt now.
No, yeah.
No, it's raising the debate about murder.
Well, maybe I was raising the debate.
We already hate.
And suicide rates?
That's what we're saying.
Yeah, that's an important thing, don't you think?
It's the biggest killer of men under 45, but are men oppressing women?
I believe that men are oppressed just as women are oppressed.
Maybe more oppressed, in my opinion.
So is it not fair to want to have a debate about why men commit suicide so much?
Because they do.
Of course it's fair, but you've changed the subject away from what you said, which was to normalize.
You said that you could be a rapist in some sense.
So you're normalising murder.
No.
That's the same thing.
It's not me.
It's just a badger.
It's not me, it's a badger.
You said that you could commit rape under some circumstances.
Yes, you did.
You said if there was enough pressure, you would cave.
You would commit rape.
Are you pressuring me to cave?
I beg pardon?
Are you pressuring me to cave right now?
No, of course I'm not so pressuring.
But things I was obviously making a joke is you're obviously making a joke.
Why are you taking a joke so seriously?
It's a funny thing.
It's not Disney making a joke.
No, it's not actually making a joke.
It's not funny.
It's not funny to people who are victims of this.
I think it's funny.
It's not funny.
But I think it's funny.
Well, I don't.
Because I'm a free man, that's why.
And he's a free man, he doesn't have to like it, yeah.
But I don't have to care whether he likes my jokes or not.
I mean, I don't like his joke, but he doesn't have to care about that.
Thank you very much for having the discussion.
▲
Export Selection