Democracy, Revolution & Rejection

 

DEMOCRACY, REVOLUTION & REJECTION:

Why We Should Reject Rather Than Revolt

 

From: http://freiekreis.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

The political soldier identifies himself, as he develops his ideology, with a given political institute, whether it be a party, a think group, an ideology, a book, a writer, a set of writers, or solely with himself. Either way, he will come to the conclusion that his ideas find or did not find fertile ground within the social reality he lives and functions in. Even the individualist anarchist is confronted with other people and their convictions and has to learn to communicate and function within these social relationships in order to exchange information, satisfy wants and needs of both himself and significant others. In this sense, F.A. Harper’s “hermit” is the only person that is truly free. For him, there is no social reality because he has excluded himself from any social relationship and any significant other, in order to be able to answer to his desire to reject a social reality. It must be said, a political or ideological idea or sentiment is not necessary for human interaction or a market situation. However it does define the perception of the (significant) other within his or her social and circumstantial context. It is even possible for an individual to reject any “idea” behind his actions, which of course puts human action back in its original sense of methodological individual choice as a result of a (semi-)rational cost-benefit analysis. On a general basis, it would not be wrong to state the overall ‘spine’ of our choices is intertwined with our image of ourselves, the other, society, metaphysical (non-)realities etc.

 

Even though there is no absolute reality and our definitions of any given word or subject (be it abstract or not) are never equal to the definitions of the (significant) others, we compare ourselves with those significant others and merely perceive that our social and personal views are similar or different. We compare and we match up with those that have similar views and use similar arguments to get to those similar views. Now we are divided in a number of fractions. Some fractions consisting of only one person, some of a great number of people, and some ideas we might imagine ourselves,  are not represented at all within our social reality at the time. Yet, even those who are the sole representatives of an opinion and therefore have an opinion monopoly, still have to interact with others in order to function, assuming he does not choose the path of the hermit and withdraws himself from the social reality, which is physically impossible under the present spatial conditions.

 

In order to plan their society, these commons find themselves on an idea market. Whether this society is a democracy or a dictatorship or anything in between is irrelevant, because nor the king nor the democratically elected representative is able to tell what the citizen or constituent or voter should think and steer your mind. And whether we like it or not, in the end the ideas that are ‘bought’ by a majority of social subjects mostly form and manage society. Not only is the king who suppresses his citizen majority with an oligarchic court and a rigid police force illegitimate, his regime has a very low stamina and the risk of failure is high. His means to maintain power (police, propaganda, repression, redistribution of wealth, etc.) are costly and its efficiency will remain low. However keeping these truths and historic facts in mind, over a large time span we can legitimately state that the opinions and ideas that have found fertile ground within the mind of the majority of a developed society will determine the course of that society. This only would work under two important premises: one, the opinions and ideas are effective and at least those who support these views (the majority) benefit from it more than they would benefit under another idea; and two, the majority stays a majority. If people lose interest or ‘external elements’ are added to the society which results in a decreasing number of supporters, the idea would implode and disappear or would at least be marginalised.

 

In this postmodern age of intellectual denomination and the (state-ignited) ideological supermarket and cultural/philosophical relativism that sprout from that, the inflation of ideas, views and ideological prostitution (democratization) has drastically devaluated the absolute value of the single view. The liberal media and political spectre have forced political soldiers to mellow out and incorporate “compromise” within their beliefs in order to disable dissidence and guarantee obedience. These truly are challenging times for the “real” political soldiers, who do not choose the path of the democratic farce and the party-political poker game. He who chooses the path of compromise is not a political soldier, but a diplomat. The political soldier will win or loose, live or die. His ideological flag is clear and unspoiled and shoots straight arguments at his enemies and wears a thick armour that is his credo. He is a noble warrior and should be a dignified victor or a worthy loser. Either way, the political soldier has a clear conscience, fighting for what he believes is right. The political diplomat on the other hand might have an idea as fierce and outspoken as the soldier, but will meet with his opponents in dark alleyways and negotiate. He will mellow his conviction out and therefore betray it. He waives the white flag of surrender, while it is truly the flag of defeat.

 

Doubting victory is admitting defeat. As is embracing compromise.

 

Whether these partycrats call themselves progressive or conservative is totally irrelevant. First of all do they embrace the party-political “game” and therefore can never be considered “progressive” or “reform-minded”, because they choose a system that promises victory, but at the same time guarantees defeat. Second, those who find themselves in or choose to be a part of the majority (the ideological majority and partial majority) can also be named nothing but conservative. He who is in power does not want to ‘change’ the scenery, for he is on the throne, and knows he gained power from the citizens under the present conditions. Even the so-called minority is truly conservative. It can only wait for the majority to make mistakes, and sell that to their electorate, under the present conditions. They are but grey vultures in a farce that is democracy. They can speak of change, but they never will, nor would they want it if they could. Even the libertarians and individual anarchists who choose the way of the party and embrace democracy are not in the clear. Even though their collaboration with the democratic majority spoils their whole mission. And power corrupts. It is unfortunately not certain that, if the libertarians would be on the political throne, they would truly diminish the state. For they are in charge and therefore have power. Power to steer. Power to influence. Power to “reign” in the libertarian ways.

 

Now, those in the political margins of society, who do not embrace the democratic dance of lies and deceit mostly are revolutionaries. They wish to ‘smash’ the system that defines these margins as margins and defines themselves as ‘norm’. But most of these barbarian smashers have an urge to rebuild. To swap roles. To change the rifle from one shoulder to the other. It is the dogma of most of the revolutionaries, especially the egalitarian leftist revolutionaries (the communists, national socialists, national Bolsheviks etc.), because they still do embrace the root of the democratic farce, namely the power of the majority. Whether it be the working class or the ‘elements of racial purity’, their revolution would succeed or fail depending on nothing but numbers. Their ideology is totally subjected to the numbers of its support. Which makes them nothing but democrats themselves. In a time of developed property rights and a strong sense of ownership in the minds of ourselves and others, thinking a revolutionary spirit is slumbering in the minds of the silent majority, is unwise. They are not silent from slumber, but hang on to what they have and what they know. The egalitarian “democratic” revolutionary will time and time again be disappointed by his supporters and therefore by his own ideas. The Russian Revolution failed eventually. Lenin thrived on social injustice and a pandemic identity crisis after a terrible defeat in a terrible war. He did not convince people of the socialist ideal, but convinced people to do away with the tsarist regime and the “old” institutions that clearly failed. If the Russians would truly be communists in their hearts, the Russian state wouldn’t have been smothered by party propaganda, the Polit Bureau and its statist bullying. The Bolshevik revolutionaries failed and will continue to fail, as long as they believe in the greater power of numbers, rather than the power of great ideas.

 

The elitist revolutionary does have a certain sense of intellectual honesty. He is honest enough to acknowledge that embracing the weapon of numbers is embracing democracy and therefore selling out your revolutionary principles. He is mature enough to see that an increase of support, what I call “supportive inflation”, implies a mellowing-out of basic principles in order to keep and keep receiving the new supporters, what I call “ideological devaluation”. He acknowledges that the self is the only one that will fully support and subscribe his own views and that the views of the significant other will always vary. He even admits that the larger the group he identifies himself with, the more his idea would have to devaluate in order to be able to make those connections with others. He therefore chooses to keep his ideological core group small. His basic premise is that this small fraction should gain power, “smash” the system and create an order to their liking, for the simple reason that they know how the system should be and function, and that the majority does not. So in a sense, the only way the differ from an everyday democrat is that the do not embrace the rules of majority versus minority. Whether they would imply an internal democracy or not is again irrelevant. The egalitarian revolutionary plays the game foul, but doesn’t cheat. The elitist revolutionary plays the game foul as well, but cheats in the process. In this sense, the egalitarian revolts in a more honest way, because he still applies the tit for tat strategy within the rules of his game. The elitist is a cheater. He first of all has to get some sort of a numeral advantage to “gain” power. However, he cheats the basic idea of the game theory by not participating in the tit for that. It is a sneaky and ineffective way to revolt. Changing the rules, winning and claiming you beat your opponent fair and square is cheating and this is bound to come back at you. It must not be stipulated any further that the elitist revolutionary needs a costly and effective institute to prevent a bottom-up revolution against their top-down elitism. Both by democratic and egalitarian revolution elements. A fine example of elitist revolutionaries were the Shogun dynasties in 18th and 19th century Japan, who managed to bring down the imperial Japanese state with a very modest number of supporters and warriors. They remained in power for a long time and had an effective government and did not participate nor cause many a conflict during their reign. But then again, they did “create” a system of their own, and for the ‘majority’ of Japanese citizens, the change of power did not matter a great deal for them and did not mess up their way of life or social reality drastically. Also the Roman civil war can be brought down to the elitist war between Marius and Sulla, the populares clan and the optimates clan. However, as understanding I am towards elitist revolution and how I tend to favour its ways over those of the of the egalitarian ‘democratic’ revolutionaries, I cannot support them fully. Never ever. They still believe in the power of successive systems as an answer to society’s problems and needs. They still believe in the power of overthrowing and rebuilding. In fact, their perception that they answer to society’s problems and needs is an illusion. Rousseau’s volonté general is an absolute illusion. There is but the aggregate of wants and needs from society’s subjects, but not a general interest that overrules the wants and needs of the civil subjects. It is their perception, their wants and needs projected with false argumentation to be “in the interest of society”. There can never be accurate ‘social’ planning, mere personal conviction and individual planning. A government, not even another person can “know” what is best for me, only perceive in his own imperfect perception what would be best for me, with the premise that HE would be ME in the given situation. Not that the Ego always knows what is best for himself, the empathy of the other is formed around his ability to put his in your place, not think in your place. Empathy remains an externality of egoism, as stated by Ayn Rand. Altruism is but the institutionalised version of empathy.

The fallacy of the elitist remains however the same. His sense of paternalistic empathy is charming, but wrong. The ruler thinks to rule in the way he THINKS is the best, and is therefore determined by his imperfect perception and entire imperfect human nature. Therefore his analysis of the world and even the perception of its problems are distorted. And as we all know, the first perfect human will be God. Even the leader who claims to act out the word of God will not act legitimately. For his perception of something that is claimed to be perfect will, yet again, be distorted through his imperfect persona. The elitist creates the majority in his own mind and acts as he pleases. In that way he is wrong, being blind towards his own perception and conditions of his nature. He might not think he is God, but his alleged divinity does prove him wrong.

 

What remains of ideas on this good earth, but those of the hermit, the democrat, the elitist and the egalitarian revolutionary? Is there another alternative? In a strict sense there isn’t. In order to manage a society these are the only ones you have. The hermit turns his back on society to live a truly free life. He quits the game, walks away and does not even consider whether he lost or won it. He has no need to play. Therefore no need to win.

The democrats play the game amongst each other in a civilized tit for that game. The winner can be king until he messes up and is defeated by the other democrat. The game does not change and the rules also stay the same. The democrats perform a civilized dance. It doesn’t get them anywhere, but it makes them feel good and safe.

The egalitarian revolutionaries also play along. They accept the rules (which does make them democrats) and when they see their chance, cheat. They play to win and when they seize control over the game, change the rules in their advantage. The egalitarian revolutionaries are cunning, but play at high stake, compromising their power with their numbers and their devaluated ideology. Their revolution is bound to end and bound to be succeeded by another revolution. This, of course, creates an incentive to have a “perpetual” revolution. In order to distract the supporting majority from puppeteering themselves, the puppeteer will constantly chance his mask and tell the spectators that the puppeteer is constantly changing. This is of course a lie, but a cunning way to reduce the chances of a counter-revolution that will sweep the egalitarian revolution away.

The elitist revolutionary does play along, but cheats from the beginning. It requires him, when not yet in power, to be already a part of an elite in order to gain power. The fact that there are consequences in order to be an elitist revolutionary, undermines his whole goal. His strategy is determined by his starting grid. An effective elitist putsch needs help in the right places. And how it will, once succeeded, maintain his power and sell it to the silent “ruled” majority, is unknown. The cost of keeping everyone satisfied and quiet will be very high.

 

Yet, there is another option. Nor is it democratic, nor is it revolutionary, nor is it the way of the hermit. The hermit doesn’t want to play the game. The democrat plays the game according to the rules. The egalitarian revolutionary plays the game according to the rules and changes both game and rules when he wins. And the elitist cheats. Both his counter players, the game and even himself.

 

Yet, there is the political soldier that turns his back from the battle and builds himself a castle. Like Harper’s hermit, he turns his back on the game and refuses to play. But unlike the hermit, he does not withdraw himself from his social reality in order to be truly free. This political soldier withdraws him solely from the game, but remains wandering across the battlefield, across the game table. He is the rejecter. He does not want to play the game, for he knows he already won. In his castle he is king, and outside he is not.

The revolutionaries believe in the power of successive systems. One changing the other and changing the other, time and time again. They do not see that the problems does not lie in the system, but is the system and is any system.

 

The democrats feel safe within their game but are hypocritical stagnant dancers. The egalitarian revolutionary just changes systems. He just puts on another record and performs another dance. Yet his dance is as stagnant and slow as the democrats’ dance, for he beliefs in the power of great numbers, not in the power of great ideas.

The petty elitist lives but in the greatness of his own mind and is drunk with interventionist compulsion. He has a great idea, but does not seem to see that it is but projected on himself and not on his people. Therefore he identifies others with himself, which makes him an egalitarian after all and which makes him the saddest revolutionary of them all.

 

Now the rejecter is noble and truthful. He is in his castle, minding his own business. Does not care about the thoughts of others but those of himself. He does not care whether his views are shared by others or not. He has no desire to play the game, only desire to interact when he has a need or a want. The rejecter looks solely for satisfaction of himself and of those he loves. He does not seek power. In fact, he rejects even the existence of the game. He is the only one who sees that power over oneself is already a difficult and precise science. He has no wish to have institutionalised power over another, let alone their minds or the entire society.

For the rejecter truly is the noblest of political soldiers. By not being one. He rejects the polis. He himself is a polis. He keeps his ruling to himself. The rejecter is a truly great person. And for all I know, I’m the only rejecter I’ve ever met.