What is Democracy? Can you seriously choose your government? And at the same time consider those elected as "servants of the people" and "people's choices"?
Democracy is the craziest idea humanity has ever gotten into. One has only to think about the meanings that it broadcasts, and then one can only wonder at its existence.
Old and modern theories of democracy characterize themselves as a method of government based on the theory that all legal citizens at hand are the supreme power in a democratic society. Within the framework of this theory, it is argued that in a democracy, power is exercised through the mass casting of votes, individually equal in importance, in public elections. That is, all citizens together constitute, as it were, the total sum of the Supreme Power, and individually - small, but absolutely equal parts of this Supreme Power.
Democratic theory asserts that all citizens are rulers, peculiar holders of shares in a democratic state. Democracy is like a joint stock company, where everyone has a separate vote, albeit a tiny one, but theoretically significant and equal to other "shareholders".
This voice does not give any visible preferences in society, neither financial nor powerful. Rather, it looks like a kind of privatization voucher, which in theory they agreed to be considered the equivalent of a small, “penny” part of the general democratic Supreme Power. The use of this democratic voucher is limited only by regular elections or referendums.
The elections are undergoing processes similar to our privatization of the 1990s. The rich and cunning then bought up real privatization checks (vouchers) from the common population, just as modern party politicians offer the mass of citizens to vote for the lists of their parties. Party members, as political traders, accumulate small power shares of citizens into already huge blocks of shares of the Supreme Power, which, after the elections, are, as it were, exchanged for significant parts of society management. The victorious parties create factions, nominate their people to the government and cut the state budget in their own interests.
The longer democracy exists in a society, the less citizens influence the formation of decisions in this society. Power is usurped by "servants of the people" - bureaucrats and "people's representatives" - party members. Gradually, together with the financial tycoons, they develop rules (laws) convenient for them, which minimize the influence of the votes (shares) of ordinary citizens on the results of the formation of power structures.
Promotional video:
The very existence of parties devalues the "penny" shares of individual citizens. Parties are the political oligarchs of democracy. Huge sums invested in election campaigns, a complex party registration system, long electoral cycles between elections, a developed system of party political groups - all this creates an impenetrable mediastinum between citizens and the government. With constant informational party propaganda, the independent decisions of the electorate are under overwhelming pressure. "Servants" and "chosen ones" totally usurp power in democratic societies. The real supreme power flows from the masses to the financial and political elite inevitably, which was written about in ancient times.
Is there something new in this world?
These "bad people" will certainly lead to the destruction of democracy itself after a very short time. This happens during the same processes of social decay that Plato described:
Interestingly, before forcing Socrates to take poison, the Athenian democracy accused him of
The beans in question played an important role in ancient Greece in drawing lots for public office. White and black beans were placed in one vessel, and the names of the candidates were placed in the other. And they took the bean and the name of the candidate out of these vessels simultaneously. If a white bean was taken out along with the candidate's name, the candidate was considered selected.
In this way, the "police", judges, financiers, public utilities, and clergymen were formed. The choice of military leaders, treasury managers, educators, architects and some other specialists went through a vote, not relying on the accidentally dropped color of beans. Although this democratic method did not help the Athenian state to resist when it collided with the Macedonian monarchy. In the Macedonian state, there were neither white nor black beans, nor the election of military leaders by a crowd. And there were professional warriors and professional rulers, and they solved the dispute between the democratic and monarchical systems in favor of Macedonia.
In principle, excluding beans, we have the same democratic processes of decomposition of society today.
Although we did not live to see the "beans" only because they are assumed by democratic theory at the stage of communism. According to the Marxist dogma, as Ulyanov (Lenin) wrote, "the functions of supervision and reporting" were supposed to be performed by "all in turn" proletarians (See: Lenin. State and Revolution. P. 50). And since everyone in turn and no matter who, then the ancient Greek "beans" were absolutely inevitable.
But overall nothing new. Everything is as before, under Socrates and Plato. All kinds of liberal-socialist propagandists call law-abiding citizens "slaves", "putinoids", "quilted jackets". Informational oppositional terror of “rulers-like subjects” is taking over society more and more. Young people begin to teach adults more and more furiously. More and more young people who have just graduated from educational institutions are becoming governors, ministers and deputies. And it doesn't really matter whether they are elected or appointed.
Pedocracy and matriarchy are consistently conquering our society. Seniors try to mentally "rejuvenate", to become "understandable" to young people - "they joke and joke." Thinking that their gray hair and wrinkles are not so noticeable for young men and women, the aim of democracy is to send the "old people" as soon as possible to retirement, to hospices or to euthanize them.
How will it all end?
And this question has long been answered. The hypertrophied freedom in our society will imperceptibly flow into a real tyranny.
“Doesn't freedom inevitably extend to everything in such a state? - talked, asking, Plato. -… an immigrant is equated with a native citizen, and a citizen - with a migrant; the same will happen with foreigners … what equality and freedom exist there for women in relation to men and for men in relation to women … If you put all this together, the most important thing will be, as you understand, that the soul of citizens becomes extremely sensitive even on trifles: everything that is forced causes indignation in them as something unacceptable. And they will end, as you know, by ceasing to reckon even with the laws - written or unwritten - so that no one at all and in anything has any power over them … After all, excessive freedom, apparently, for the individual, and for the state turns to nothing else,as into excessive slavery … So, tyranny arises, of course, not from any other system, as from democracy; in other words, the greatest and most cruel slavery arises from extreme freedom”(Plato. State. 562c-564a).
So, the hypertrophied freedom instilled by democracy is only a step towards excessive tyranny. Extremes are closing in. Therefore, we must get rid of extremes.
As a way of thinking and as a way of government, democracy is such a dangerous extreme - the absolutization of freedom - that is, the extreme of anarchy and the absolutization of one's egoism.
Let us list some of the reasons for the danger of democracy for Russia:
1. Neither a person is born free, nor a state can be built on the principle of freedom
In a democracy, the non-working, all-destroying principle of hypertrophied freedom is placed at the foundation of the state and the worldview of the individual.
Man is not at all born free, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, revered by all "progressive humanity" for the new democratic "Beatitudes." On the contrary, man is a being with a dual nature - both spiritual and physical. In the spiritual plane, he can reach the greatest peaks of freedom, but less and less uses this potential of his. As a physical being, it is difficult to call him free by birth. He is born and lives his life, limited by a huge number of earthly circumstances and coercive factors.
Starting from the fact that no one asks him if he wants to be born. In that guise, with those abilities that were already originally incorporated into it. In that family, in that culture and in the state in which he appears. And ending with those life circumstances, historical trials and numerous people with whom he is destined to live his life on earth. Of course, all this does not exclude the freedom of his action, but it never gives the final victory of this freedom over the surrounding world of earthly necessities.
Democracy, in fact, does not see in a person the spiritual component of his personality. It is too materialistic, formal. And human freedom in a democracy becomes an elusive fiction, aggressively limited by developing technologies that seek to organize the world without human participation.
The state and society generally cannot be formed on the principle of freedom. Freedom is too narrow and conflicting principle. The freedom of some too often contradicts the freedoms of others. This causes social strife and partisan divisions.
Democracy is able to bring the world to the absolute uselessness of man and replace the human personality with a soulless machine. In this sad process of dehumanization, the personality is so degraded that it will be ready for any totalitarian despotism, up to the apocalyptic rule of the Antichrist.
2. Real, direct democracy is actually an invention of philosophers
There has never been any direct control of the people, there is no now and will never be in the future. For this, as the "apostle" of democracy Rousseau wrote, conditions that are absolutely impossible to fulfill in earthly societies are necessary. Everyone in a democratic republic should know each other. Everyone should be absolutely equal to each other - both politically and economically. All parties and any party propaganda should be banned. Only under such “distilled” conditions will each citizen, in accordance with the movements of his conscience, freely and consciously make government decisions. But even then it is not a fact that they are correct.
3. Democratic ideas turned out to be much more dangerous for humanity than even great conquests
Democracy symbolically appeared in ancient Greece and revived in modern times in the United States - in slave societies.
In the future, all the most terrible social utopias in the history of mankind, according to an interesting pattern, were easily combined with democracy. Over the past hundred years, democracy has been portrayed as a communist dictatorship, a National Socialist racist state, and Western globalist liberalism. All these democratic experiences have cost humanity oceans of suffering and shed blood.
All these Bolshevik leaders, German Fuhrer, American-European presidents and liberal-socialist partocrats gave a lot of democratic lessons on usurpation and falsification of popular desires.
Democracy for all of them was the most suitable form, covering up their inhuman plans with sweet demagoguery.
4. In a democracy, the supreme power only nominally belongs to the people
In fact, it is almost always usurped by "servants of the people" - bureaucrats, "people's representatives" - party politicians. And financial tycoons trying to bribe the first two groups for the transition to oligarchic rule.
5. Equity that is harmful to society
In a democracy, all individuals, despite their talents, are politically equal. Real justice does not need equality.
All people are different, and each of them needs his own justice, his own truth. Adults are not equal to children, smart are not equal to stupid, heroes are not equal to traitors, ascetics are not equal to philistines. Equalizing democracy does not provide true justice, it averages and even simplifies the scale of individuals. And after the degradation of personality, society itself also degrades.
Democracy gives political equal rights to people - decent and bad, smart and stupid, honest and dishonest. And with such negative selection, the bad, the stupid and the dishonest gain an advantage in a democracy, because they are not eliminated as unfit for power. Rarely does anyone enjoy a well-deserved position and respect.
6. Democracy assures us that all the Supreme Power is mathematically exactly in equal shares scattered in society, among the entire totality of the adult admitted to the vote of the population
This is sheer absurdity. In elections, the minority loses to the majority. But how can one part of the Supreme Power lose to another part of the Supreme Power? After all, the supreme power in a democracy, in theory, is the entire body of citizens. But there is a huge mass of citizens who do not go to elections at all and do not use their parts of the Supreme Power.
For a democracy, elections are, in fact, the "gathering" of these "particles of power" into a kind of "majority" of these particles for the formation of executive and legislative power. It is interesting here that democracy does not run the risk of popularly electing the judicial branch of government. Although why does a president or a legislator need less professional knowledge and experience than a judge? This is the same absurdity inherent in democracy as a whole when building public administration.
7. Democracy does not value experience and knowledge
Even those who are not very talented by nature, but the rulers or administrators who rule without any elections are superior in experience to those who are elected to positions for a short electoral cycle. During this period, the elected think more about how to distribute political debts and financial preferences to their party comrades, as well as how to make it to the next elections. Democracy underestimates the importance of knowledge and experience for governance. And he follows the formal rule of turnover of those in power more than their effectiveness.
In a democracy, millions of citizens do not understand anything about state issues, although they vote for this or that candidate or party. For democracy, a wise statesman or statesman means exactly the same as a person who has not even graduated from a secondary school with a certificate.
Both genius and idiot will be counted as a political entity. Both the one and the other will be absolutely equally consistent for democracy in the formation of power.
8. Democracy never seeks truth
Democracy is only interested in the arithmetic majority of votes. Democracy as a system professes the strange belief that the majority of voters are more right-wing than those who remain in the minority. And he instructs the majority to form the government. Moreover, the majority remains legitimate indefinitely until the next elections.
Democracy does not create a power that unites the nation, it is always a party. In society, however, there are always hundreds of various minority and majority compositions that do not coincide at all with party affiliation. Real society is much more complicated than the majority and minority of voters found in democratic elections. That is why the nation most often remains in democracies without its real representatives, but only with usurpers and interpreters of its will.
9. State weakness of democracy
Democracy is a very unstable system. The formation of a democratic government is always fraught with great difficulties. Each electoral cycle in a democracy must be sought and re-created, both the executive and the legislature. Political parties helpfully mediate between the people and bureaucrats in this matter.
With a frequent change of the head of state and party groups in power, society becomes hypertrophied due to the weakening of the state, and when one of the groups is in power for a long time, the bureaucratic apparatus, on the contrary, excessively begins to restrain the creative forces of society and also degrades.
Democracy pedals and intensifies group struggles in society. It is unable to balance the relationship between the state mechanism and various social group forces. Democratic power is unstable and constantly changeable from election to election.
In democracies, unrelenting cold civil wars are waged latently. The private interest organizing party groups strives into politics exclusively for the conquest of the state for the service of its own private interest. The elected government cannot become for a long time the authority for various private interests. She is only temporarily able to either muffle them, or openly choose one of the fighting parties and administratively serve her with her power.
The nationwide state affair is terminated, and the state falls under the rule of private interest, capital, and a group. More often than not, the majority of the titular nation falls into financial and civil enslavement to these minority forces. Things can go so far as to lose sovereignty itself and to submit to the forces of world globalism.
10. Western democracy does not work in Russia
The American form of democracy imposed on the whole world does not give positive results anywhere except in English-speaking countries. The implantation of this form of democracy into Russian national fabrics causes psychological rejection.
Over the past hundred years, we have tried all the options for democracy that the West has offered us, from the most liberal to the most socialist. Russian authoritarian psychological stereotypes of attitudes towards power, high demands on power and its representatives have always been discordant with all variants of democratic attempts to move society itself to the fore at the expense of statehood. All the Western political clothes that the Russians have “tried on” over the last century have turned out to be small for us and inconvenient for our life.
Democracy is too low an "octane number", too egoistic view of the world, which does not involve the deep psychological stereotypes of the behavior of the Russian nation, and is not an inherent "fuel" for our state engine. He malfunctions, sneezes, stalls and barely trudges. The disciplined enthusiasm, gift of obedience and readiness for self-sacrifice characteristic of the Russian people are not applicable in the system of democratic egoism. And on other "fuel" the machine of Russian statehood is not able to move forward.
11. Party politicians turn popular representation into a kind of professional feeding
Act like cohesive organizations. The people are gradually turning into an increasingly weakening and fragmented electorate, an object of political manipulation by the ruling politician class. Elections in a democracy are becoming less and less like the free expression of the will of the people. And more and more - for the competition of party propagandists, administrative resources and big money.
Democratic deputies do not represent anyone in their representative institutions. In theory, a deputy is just a manager, a hired "solicitor," a transmitter of future people's decisions on certain state affairs. The people's representative is only a representative of his constituent, but in reality a deputy depends on the party, on the government, on the money invested in him, much more than on his constituent.
For the voter, entrusting his power to the deputy for whom he votes, in reality, becomes only a political illusion. Once elected, the party deputy, already in a representative institution, makes decisions based on absolute party arbitrariness, as he pleases.
And this is reality. Because no deputy can know in advance, for four or five years, what the will of his elector will be. He cannot carry out the will of the voter that is alien to him, but only his own and his party. The entire system of political representation is a usurpation and party interpretation of the will of the voters.
12. In a democracy, people's representation is overloaded with state functions that are impossible for it: lawmaking and the formation of the legislative branch of government
People elected practically from the street, in theory, should perform the most complex state function - lawmaking. Which literally a few people are capable of after completing a refined specialized higher education and many years of public service practice. Democratic deputies, on the other hand, are not capable of such activities in about 99 cases out of 100. Hence, there is a huge number of laws that contradict each other, and the proliferation of legislation in general, which few people are able to monitor changes. Not to be understood and properly performed.
13. At one extreme, democracies try to shape government into a dictatorship of law
But the law cannot reflect all shades of truth, justice in society. The law is blind, has no pity, has no conscience, is incapable of love. The more consistent his dictatorship, the more inhuman it is. The more severe it is, the more its inevitability should fall on more and more representatives of society. If he is subject to the corrupt flexibility of the people who perform him, then in such a society who is rich and cunning, he becomes and is not subject to the law.
The dictatorship of the law in the style of the well-known saying “Let the world perish, but justice be done” is not convincing to human consciousness. It is not convincing in its formality, which often obscures the essence of specific cases. But democracy is the personification of formality, since the very person in power is always under suspicion of democratic theory.
14. At the other extreme in democracies, freedom often takes on the features of permissiveness, arbitrariness and violence
It must be said that democracy constantly rushes from one extreme of attempts to introduce the dictatorship of the law to the other extreme - absolute freedom from all possible restrictions by legal framework.
With the absolutization of freedom, any order of power becomes unbearable. Any regulation - repression, suppression, lack of freedom in a liberal or anarchist context. In the socialist extreme, individual freedom is generally denied in the name of the dictatorship of the class state and party society.
15. Dormant Brotherhood
Democracy is generally international in nature. Multiculturalism, globalism is a product of democratic ideas.
For an internationalist democracy, any nation is only a conceivable fiction. No value is recognized for historical ethnic communities.
Democracies prefer to disperse nations into an atomized electorate. Usually they destroy the historically formed social organism of the nation and do not recognize the existence of social professional strata, creating political parties instead.
Democracy deprives historical nations of their internal national agenda. Instead of nations, democracies have only an electoral mass. She votes for the party political programs of various socialist or liberal globalist projects, which are equally uninterested in any national agenda. Artificially created democratic groups of the financial rich, state bureaucrats and party politicians are in power under any version of democracy. Only these three clan groups have access to power in a democracy. The nation remains isolated, and they seek to discredit its desires in every possible way as outdated or politically incorrect.
Hence the open borders for mass migration, in order to dissolve the voice of indigenous citizens in other ethnic interests.
In a democracy, people are systematically transformed into a dumb social mass, which is called to be active only during elections. They are trying to turn it gradually into a non-national electorate, united in the sum of voting only by the forces of parties.
***
Analysis of the causes of the danger of democracy gives us the right only to repeat the original premise of this article: Democracy is the craziest idea that humanity has ever been attracted to.
We must look for other ways.
Author: Smolin Mikhail