Что такое истинная демократия? (What is True Democracy?)
I've been on leave, enjoying a long break for health reasons. I wrote the following in reply to Maxim, since he says he'd prefer not to waste energy over private conversations, I'll bring it up in public. I'm not interested in continuing this debate, but it can be food for thought.
***
Democracy as an ideal has no basis in reality. We know that hierarchies prevail even in higher worlds. For democracy to be realizable, everyone would have to be found on the same stage of development. But that's impossible. Andreev said, RM «itself will consist not only of the righteous but also of people standing at varying levels of moral development.»
The very emergence of the Rose of the World will have a completely different air about it: it will appear in the milieu of democratic rule established in many countries that will be gradually spreading around and engaging the best representatives of humanity into its ranks. Clearly, he was not referring to any existing democratic states, which do not represent the people, but rather he prophecies the rise of a new form of democracy, new democratic atmosphere/climate that supersedes the prevailing democratic conditions. He also differentiates between true democracy (guaranteed rights/freedoms) and parodies.
He clearly saw through modern sham democracy, describing it as the most unstable of all existing systems... «social democratic administrations that get buffeted by the winds of history, first right, then left, from inept starry-eyed idealism to revolutionary extremism.»
Democracy As it is currently is is merely a play with labels, much like socialism.
Most existing forms of democracy involve little to none participation from the people, we instead entrust our public affairs to elected officials, who meet behind closed doors. They do not represent our interests. Democracy is favored by interest cliques, because it can be used to deceive people into believing their government are acting in their best interests & would never lie to them. People are manipulated by promises of a better future, the carrot and stick method.
A Dutch historian Rutger Bregman points out, «A company with intrinsically motivated employees has no need of managers; a democracy with engaged citizens has no need of career politicians.» Rousseau too wrote, «a people that would always govern well would not need to be governed.»
The majority are brought up to believe that equality extends to social issues. Democracy in actual fact means people look down on everybody else as their inferior, viewing them as belonging to a lower social class than them; «the assumption of the equality of every one, not only before God and the law, but before men, has lowered the general level to an extraordinary degree.» (Hermann Keyserling) Precisely what happened in Germany. Hitler's ideas wouldn't have taken root if democratic-equality complex hadn't already existed among Germans. He convinced the majority of Germans they belonged to a privileged race. The Jews were a backward class from which Germans should raise their condition. Germans felt morally superior by looking down on the Jews.
The propagandist talk about progress (as if every innovation is a good thing), making the world safer for (American) democracy to thrive in is dust being thrown into people's eyes.
«'The aim of progress is a developed and developing individuality and the greatest degree of freedom attainable by man': such an aim entails not fraternal feelings but disunity and, consequently, the zenith of progress is the nadir of brotherhood.» (Nikolai Fedorov)
The solution of the problem thus consists in raising the overall standard of living. But it has become a truism, after all, that humanity's prosperity increases along with progress.
«The world is growing poorer every day. That this is the real meaning of progress, America illustrates with horrifying clarity... How poor the world is becoming for our sake! We do, of course, fence in wide tracts of country in the interests of animals, and we appoint districts to the redskins; but this does not put a stop to their destruction.» (Hermann Keyserling)
***
Simone Weil recommended,
«wherever a man is placed for life at the head of the social organism, he ought to be a symbol and not a ruler, as is the case with the king of England; etiquette ought also to restrict his freedom more narrowly than that of any single man of the people. In this way, the effective rulers, rulers though they be, have somebody over them; on the other hand, they are able to replace each other in unbroken continuity, and consequently to receive, each in his turn, that indispensable amount of obedience due to him.»
The system that will be realizable in the future is when the best of all men/women, that is, the most competent and qualified individuals, are entrusted with our affairs:
“Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies; but let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. For thus both we ourselves shall be among the governors, and power being entrusted to the best men, it is likely that the best counsels will prevail in the state.” (Herodotus)
«it would be most natural for a person who possesses three of the greatest gifts–religious vision, righteousness, and artistic genius – to stand at the head of the Rose of the World.»
“In a word, it is the best and most natural arrangement that the wisest should govern the many, when it is assured that they will govern for its profit, and not for their own.” (Rousseau)
“Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring.” (Charles Darwin)
***
Democracy as an ideal has no basis in reality. We know that hierarchies prevail even in higher worlds. For democracy to be realizable, everyone would have to be found on the same stage of development. But that's impossible. Andreev said, RM «itself will consist not only of the righteous but also of people standing at varying levels of moral development.»
For context, Andreev wrote:
The very emergence of the Rose of the World will have a completely different air about it: it will appear in the milieu of democratic rule established in many countries that will be gradually spreading around and engaging the best representatives of humanity into its ranks. Clearly, he was not referring to any existing democratic states, which do not represent the people, but rather he prophecies the rise of a new form of democracy, new democratic atmosphere/climate that supersedes the prevailing democratic conditions. He also differentiates between true democracy (guaranteed rights/freedoms) and parodies.
He clearly saw through modern sham democracy, describing it as the most unstable of all existing systems... «social democratic administrations that get buffeted by the winds of history, first right, then left, from inept starry-eyed idealism to revolutionary extremism.»
Democracy As it is currently is is merely a play with labels, much like socialism.
Most existing forms of democracy involve little to none participation from the people, we instead entrust our public affairs to elected officials, who meet behind closed doors. They do not represent our interests. Democracy is favored by interest cliques, because it can be used to deceive people into believing their government are acting in their best interests & would never lie to them. People are manipulated by promises of a better future, the carrot and stick method.
A Dutch historian Rutger Bregman points out, «A company with intrinsically motivated employees has no need of managers; a democracy with engaged citizens has no need of career politicians.» Rousseau too wrote, «a people that would always govern well would not need to be governed.»
The majority are brought up to believe that equality extends to social issues. Democracy in actual fact means people look down on everybody else as their inferior, viewing them as belonging to a lower social class than them; «the assumption of the equality of every one, not only before God and the law, but before men, has lowered the general level to an extraordinary degree.» (Hermann Keyserling) Precisely what happened in Germany. Hitler's ideas wouldn't have taken root if democratic-equality complex hadn't already existed among Germans. He convinced the majority of Germans they belonged to a privileged race. The Jews were a backward class from which Germans should raise their condition. Germans felt morally superior by looking down on the Jews.
The propagandist talk about progress (as if every innovation is a good thing), making the world safer for (American) democracy to thrive in is dust being thrown into people's eyes.
«'The aim of progress is a developed and developing individuality and the greatest degree of freedom attainable by man': such an aim entails not fraternal feelings but disunity and, consequently, the zenith of progress is the nadir of brotherhood.» (Nikolai Fedorov)
The solution of the problem thus consists in raising the overall standard of living. But it has become a truism, after all, that humanity's prosperity increases along with progress.
«The world is growing poorer every day. That this is the real meaning of progress, America illustrates with horrifying clarity... How poor the world is becoming for our sake! We do, of course, fence in wide tracts of country in the interests of animals, and we appoint districts to the redskins; but this does not put a stop to their destruction.» (Hermann Keyserling)
***
I agree with what you wrote here.
Simone Weil recommended,
«wherever a man is placed for life at the head of the social organism, he ought to be a symbol and not a ruler, as is the case with the king of England; etiquette ought also to restrict his freedom more narrowly than that of any single man of the people. In this way, the effective rulers, rulers though they be, have somebody over them; on the other hand, they are able to replace each other in unbroken continuity, and consequently to receive, each in his turn, that indispensable amount of obedience due to him.»
The system that will be realizable in the future is when the best of all men/women, that is, the most competent and qualified individuals, are entrusted with our affairs:
“Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies; but let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. For thus both we ourselves shall be among the governors, and power being entrusted to the best men, it is likely that the best counsels will prevail in the state.” (Herodotus)
«it would be most natural for a person who possesses three of the greatest gifts–religious vision, righteousness, and artistic genius – to stand at the head of the Rose of the World.»
“In a word, it is the best and most natural arrangement that the wisest should govern the many, when it is assured that they will govern for its profit, and not for their own.” (Rousseau)
“Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring.” (Charles Darwin)
, так как оно, появление это, помогло мне собраться и доделать многие формулировки.
