Democratic Anarchy
Created | Updated Mar 6, 2002
This may sound odd, that’s because it is. Sorry but I can’t really do much about that. This is my specialty, theories which appear to be the product of a deranged mind (and are, I freely admit.), but are actually perfectly reasonable, (well according to me anyway, whatever the hell kind of gauge that is). All I ask of you is that you read this work with an open mind with no preconceptions and formulate your own opinion.
To understand this theory you first have to understand what democracy is, everybody thinks they do but, like the majority of things most people think they understand not many people actually do, (“Is The Modern World Democratic?” gives more insight into this.). Whether you are average Mr Joe Public or a practicing M.P (not likely but we can hope right) I present here a repeat of The Nature of Democracy, to be found in Is The Modern World Democratic, for the purpose of reference/background.
As I have evaluated the nature of democracy and of government, and contemplated the actual definitions of both, as separate entities and as combined issues, (which are much broader than the traditional preconception of the 2-party electoral system resulting in an organised body of beaurocrats.) It has become more and more apparent to me that modern government is not democratic.
For a government of any kind to be democratic certain criteria must be met:
Democracy was originally invented by those inventors of virtually everything, the Greeks. The first ancient Grecian democracies were as close to the ideal democracy as anyone has ever come in many important ways (slavery and equality between the sexes excluded, it’s the organisational side I’m refering to here). The system used was that of direct democracy, in which everyone voted on everything (excluding women and slaves but applied in the modern world these conditions would obviously not apply!), by placing a vote for or against a proposal, to abstein you simply didn’t bother. In effect the whole country became a parliament. To me this is the ideal system as everyone can have their say and the society can truly direct its own course without politicians corrupting the system to meet their own ends. Sounds paranoid ha? Well if politics is a career, and one with a damn good salary to, then why should we not expect the politicians to be in it for the money? And to do whatever is best to advance that career. However very obviously this system is impossible to administer in countries with such high populations as are found today. Ironically the world spanning revolution of the proletariat uniting the nations of man and freeing all humanity, of which we can only dream as no-one actually cares but me, would completely and irreperebly spanner this system, there's no justice. Although with the wonderful new internet technology at our very fingertips (Sorry about the blatant sarcasm) this could theoretically be arranged apart from problems with hackers defrauding the system for their own ends overload of data crashing the system etc (which basically gives us a centuries wait for technology to catch up)
it is a system of direct democracy that would give us the most truly democratic government, but for direct democracy to exist the government must be dispensed with in order to place control of society in the hands of the people via the system of direct democracy.
Sadly there is some truth to this as the human race as a whole is a very greedy and self-destructive force. However how much does government limit this? As I can see not much. You can’t leave your property unattended without fear of theft, it’s unsafe to walk the streets at night, and a surprisingly large section of the populace would, if given half a chance, steal anything and everything that wasn’t actually nailed down. This is however in some ways the fault of the government. How can any government that allows a man to be so poor that he can’t eat then punish him for taking what he requires to survive? We all have the right to have what we need to survive and therefore if we cannot gain access to it, despite our best efforts, by legal means then why should we not turn to crime to even the balance. How can you hang a man for being hungry? The truth of the matter is that the majority of crime around the world is caused by poverty, and the government does nothing to reduce poverty as anyone stuck unable to gain employment through no fault of their own, and fobbed off with the pitance the government is willing to give out to keep the populace from outright revolt will only too readily tell you. The fact of the matter is that our governments are capitalist governments that are dedicated to the advance and management of the economy. Our governments throughout history have sought to create better conditions for businesses to thrive and prosper, often at the expense of their own people. Look at the treatment of unions, the miners, slave labour and western backed use of child labour at below poverty rate pay in the third world. Most governments spend a majority of their time advancing the interests of commerce to the deficit of their people. If this is what government is achieving for the people, sacrificing them for the sake of better and bigger business, then why not dispense with them?
In the Marxist-Lenninist world of post october revolution Russia things were much different. In the advent of the upheaval of the civil war Lennin and the red army had to resort to “war communism”, wich was little better than the tyrranical Tsarist feudalism that had preceded it. However Russia was not developed econommically to the right degree for a succesful revolution of the proletariat leading to the beginning of a communist state and so, with Lennin’s death died the revolution as the era of Stalin’s dictatorial neo-fascist impearialistic personality cult at the head of what was just another capitalist country but with total governmental control of all economic forces, came to power. This state run capitalism with Stalin’s masquerade as a communist leader could not have been further from the vision of Marx and was no more communist than Himmler’s favourite rubber truncheon. My idea of communism is very different from that of Stalinist Russia. A society where everybody does what they can for the whole society and takes what they need for themselves and their family to live a happy comfortable life, free from fear want or oppresion.
In my vision of the ideal post-Marxist revolutionary communist world there would be a state of democratic government by anarchy. Many may think that this is ridiculous but if the whole of the human race or the vast majority thereof agreed to have a society in which everyone would return either to their pre-revolution jobs or to a different job of social worth (ie not management conultation or the like), not be payed for their work, and take from the resources the society would thereby create through this work what they needed to live without need or want of the essentials to survive and to live happily. With society “getting on with it” without wasting time on pointless meaningless concepts such as money then there would be no need for a government of any kind once society was back on its feet. If everybody agrees to lack of government then the state of anarchy has been reached democratically and as the people are conducting their own lives, and thereby governing themselves, this while not having an organised group of power-trippin’ yuppies to tell us all what to think and do there would still effectively be a form of government in the absence of government. This my friends (and would be assasins) is the theory of democratic government by anarchy.
Big Bad Bolshevik Bob
The Kalashnikov Party
This is in part a reply to Dastardly re; her request for my view on anarchy. Sorry it took so long.
I would like to thank: Covert Bob, my fellow conspirator/revolutionary psychopath, Vicky, for adding some sense of balance and providing me with the opposite end of the argument, a certain individual (who will remain nameless) for unwittingly feeding me the repugnant views of the right wing scum of British nationalism so I can argue against and destroy them, Emma who provided me with a large helping of inspiration and made me realise I’m not the only one out there who gives a damn, every well meant attempt at Marxism, at least you tried, Che Guevara, Ghandi, Dr King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, and all others who have fought and/or died for the freedom of others.
U168963
To understand this theory you first have to understand what democracy is, everybody thinks they do but, like the majority of things most people think they understand not many people actually do, (“Is The Modern World Democratic?” gives more insight into this.). Whether you are average Mr Joe Public or a practicing M.P (not likely but we can hope right) I present here a repeat of The Nature of Democracy, to be found in Is The Modern World Democratic, for the purpose of reference/background.
The Nature Of Democracy
As I have evaluated the nature of democracy and of government, and contemplated the actual definitions of both, as separate entities and as combined issues, (which are much broader than the traditional preconception of the 2-party electoral system resulting in an organised body of beaurocrats.) It has become more and more apparent to me that modern government is not democratic.
For a government of any kind to be democratic certain criteria must be met:
- All laws and policies by which the governed society lives must be created and implemented by the people or their elected representatives.
- Authority to rule must come from the people as a whole (or a majority thereof) or from an electorate formed of those members of society who fulfil certain criteria required (in the case of an organised beaurocracy)
- The aforementioned electorate must actively exercise direct control over the decisions made by and activities of the government, ie. by referendum, voting of officials in and out of office or by direct democracy.
The Original Democracy
This is the most important piece of background information to be linked in to this work is the early history of democracy. The very first democracy.Democracy was originally invented by those inventors of virtually everything, the Greeks. The first ancient Grecian democracies were as close to the ideal democracy as anyone has ever come in many important ways (slavery and equality between the sexes excluded, it’s the organisational side I’m refering to here). The system used was that of direct democracy, in which everyone voted on everything (excluding women and slaves but applied in the modern world these conditions would obviously not apply!), by placing a vote for or against a proposal, to abstein you simply didn’t bother. In effect the whole country became a parliament. To me this is the ideal system as everyone can have their say and the society can truly direct its own course without politicians corrupting the system to meet their own ends. Sounds paranoid ha? Well if politics is a career, and one with a damn good salary to, then why should we not expect the politicians to be in it for the money? And to do whatever is best to advance that career. However very obviously this system is impossible to administer in countries with such high populations as are found today. Ironically the world spanning revolution of the proletariat uniting the nations of man and freeing all humanity, of which we can only dream as no-one actually cares but me, would completely and irreperebly spanner this system, there's no justice. Although with the wonderful new internet technology at our very fingertips (Sorry about the blatant sarcasm) this could theoretically be arranged apart from problems with hackers defrauding the system for their own ends overload of data crashing the system etc (which basically gives us a centuries wait for technology to catch up)
it is a system of direct democracy that would give us the most truly democratic government, but for direct democracy to exist the government must be dispensed with in order to place control of society in the hands of the people via the system of direct democracy.
Anarchy!
“I am an anarchist!” to qoute the ever cute and fluffy Johnny Rotten, but there is a lot more to anarchy than the Sex Pistols. Most people have the preconception that anarchy is utter chaos and disorganisation, mostly as some idiot decided at some point to use the word “anarchy” as a synonym for disorganisation and chaos. The advent of a state of chaos is one theory of the result of anarchy. The actual meaning of anarchy is “the absence of any government” but over time and with extreme misuse has been taken against as a term generally used to define everything cocking up in a shocking fashion. Real anarchists want a world without government, whilst those that disagree believe that government is necessary as without it society would dissolve and be reduced to a “state of nature” in which there would be a “war of all against all.” I find it rather arrogant of those in power to assume that the human race after so many centuries of evolution are only kept from a return to barbarianism by their presence, giving themselves a reason to rule over us that is not far from the excuses for the British occupation of South Africa during the years of the apartheid regime; they couldn’t run their lives themselves poor things everything would be chaos, crime depravity etc. I would ask how the hell do they know if they won’t even let us try? How can any one be this self righteous and arrogant? To assume that their own presence in a ruling position is the only thing keeping an otherwise population of scum and criminals from living in a destructive fashion in which crime and depravity would ensue is truly worrying. These people must be on a luxury 5 star ego cruising.Sadly there is some truth to this as the human race as a whole is a very greedy and self-destructive force. However how much does government limit this? As I can see not much. You can’t leave your property unattended without fear of theft, it’s unsafe to walk the streets at night, and a surprisingly large section of the populace would, if given half a chance, steal anything and everything that wasn’t actually nailed down. This is however in some ways the fault of the government. How can any government that allows a man to be so poor that he can’t eat then punish him for taking what he requires to survive? We all have the right to have what we need to survive and therefore if we cannot gain access to it, despite our best efforts, by legal means then why should we not turn to crime to even the balance. How can you hang a man for being hungry? The truth of the matter is that the majority of crime around the world is caused by poverty, and the government does nothing to reduce poverty as anyone stuck unable to gain employment through no fault of their own, and fobbed off with the pitance the government is willing to give out to keep the populace from outright revolt will only too readily tell you. The fact of the matter is that our governments are capitalist governments that are dedicated to the advance and management of the economy. Our governments throughout history have sought to create better conditions for businesses to thrive and prosper, often at the expense of their own people. Look at the treatment of unions, the miners, slave labour and western backed use of child labour at below poverty rate pay in the third world. Most governments spend a majority of their time advancing the interests of commerce to the deficit of their people. If this is what government is achieving for the people, sacrificing them for the sake of better and bigger business, then why not dispense with them?
The Original Revolution
Karl Marx’s original belief was that there would come a time when the capitalist Bourgeois would have pushed the working Proletariat too far. They would become fed up with doing all the work and receiving a very limited amount of the profit and being mistreated, abused, taken for granted and treated over al like a subclass of society. When this time came Marx predicted that there would be a revolution of the Proletariat, who being a vast majority against such a small group as the rich capitalist fat cats, would win. After this revolution there would come the final age of man, Communism. Unlike most peoples misconceptions communism is not a political system, it is a method of economy.In the Marxist-Lenninist world of post october revolution Russia things were much different. In the advent of the upheaval of the civil war Lennin and the red army had to resort to “war communism”, wich was little better than the tyrranical Tsarist feudalism that had preceded it. However Russia was not developed econommically to the right degree for a succesful revolution of the proletariat leading to the beginning of a communist state and so, with Lennin’s death died the revolution as the era of Stalin’s dictatorial neo-fascist impearialistic personality cult at the head of what was just another capitalist country but with total governmental control of all economic forces, came to power. This state run capitalism with Stalin’s masquerade as a communist leader could not have been further from the vision of Marx and was no more communist than Himmler’s favourite rubber truncheon. My idea of communism is very different from that of Stalinist Russia. A society where everybody does what they can for the whole society and takes what they need for themselves and their family to live a happy comfortable life, free from fear want or oppresion.
The Theory Bit
Yeah I actually managed to get to it! Impressed? You should be! Anyway here follows my vision of a perfect society.In my vision of the ideal post-Marxist revolutionary communist world there would be a state of democratic government by anarchy. Many may think that this is ridiculous but if the whole of the human race or the vast majority thereof agreed to have a society in which everyone would return either to their pre-revolution jobs or to a different job of social worth (ie not management conultation or the like), not be payed for their work, and take from the resources the society would thereby create through this work what they needed to live without need or want of the essentials to survive and to live happily. With society “getting on with it” without wasting time on pointless meaningless concepts such as money then there would be no need for a government of any kind once society was back on its feet. If everybody agrees to lack of government then the state of anarchy has been reached democratically and as the people are conducting their own lives, and thereby governing themselves, this while not having an organised group of power-trippin’ yuppies to tell us all what to think and do there would still effectively be a form of government in the absence of government. This my friends (and would be assasins) is the theory of democratic government by anarchy.
Big Bad Bolshevik Bob
The Kalashnikov Party
This is in part a reply to Dastardly re; her request for my view on anarchy. Sorry it took so long.
I would like to thank: Covert Bob, my fellow conspirator/revolutionary psychopath, Vicky, for adding some sense of balance and providing me with the opposite end of the argument, a certain individual (who will remain nameless) for unwittingly feeding me the repugnant views of the right wing scum of British nationalism so I can argue against and destroy them, Emma who provided me with a large helping of inspiration and made me realise I’m not the only one out there who gives a damn, every well meant attempt at Marxism, at least you tried, Che Guevara, Ghandi, Dr King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, and all others who have fought and/or died for the freedom of others.
U168963
