De Mockery of Democracy (Reprise)

[My young friend Kamil sent me the following assignment question, asking for some viewpoints from me. I figured my response to Kamil was worth blogging, so here it is...]

It has been said that democracy may not be the perfect form of goverment but it is better than the alternatives. To what extent do you agree?

Certain assumptions are being made here that may be inaccurate or incorrect, So before we can answer the question, let's examine what these assumptions are.

Assumption #1: Democracy exists and is practised in certain countries.
In truth democracy is purely theoretical. Even in old Athens where it was invented, there was only democracy up to a point - beyond which one could get arrested for subversion, imprisoned, and end up drinking hemlock. The state is forever jealous of its authority and power, and will not hesitate to use force if persuasion fails. In so-called democratic countries, we find that the public is led to believe it has freedom of choice - but in actuality that freedom does not extend beyond the most trivial matters (like the make of car you drive or the scent your date prefers). In all crucial areas decisions are made by "backroom boys" acting on behalf of a tiny handful of plutocrats (people who own banks, newspapers, TV stations, bomb factories, armies, spy agencies, and governments).

The machinery of political power is driven by popular votes. However, elections can be rigged, conducted on an uneven playing field, and stolen outright. Voters can be bought, hoodwinked, disenfranchised or overlooked completely. Because "majority opinion" is measured quantitatively, human destiny can be jeopardized or hijacked by a corrupt and dishonest clique willing to take extraordinary risks. The proverbial man-in-the-street doesn't stand a chance against a cartel of well-funded criminals, who obtain their money through illicit means and buy up all the airspace. He can't be heard against a well-coordinated media blitz.

In effect, scratch a modern democracy and you'll find mobster rule. Robber barons and pirate kings now come with a slick corporate image and very expensive tailoring. But gangsterism is gangsterism, and privilege actually means "private law." So when even the law is privatized, is it any wonder that justice is blind?

Democracy originally meant "popular rule" - in effect, government of the people, by the people, for the people. Which sounds pretty similar to Marxist/socialist ideals. However, you only have to have the means of influencing the collective psyche to make the people believe they are exercising their democratic rights when all they can do is predictably react to pre-programmed stimuli.

Assumption #2: Though imperfect democracy is "better than"...
"Better" is a very vague term and begs redefinition. This dish is good but that one is better... in reality the other dish is simply different. You cannot compare pheasant-under-glass with a hamburger. Each recipe works in a specific context. In other words, a fair comparison is hinted at where none is possible.

Assumption #3: The word "alternatives" implies Communism.
A popular misconception is that the opposite of democracy is communism. Actually, it's dictatorship we're talking about: what's antagonistic to popular rule is state despotism - whether the despot is a single individual or a faceless committee. The alternative to democracy might also be monarchy - or various spin-offs like aristocracy, meritocracy, or plutocracy. Nevertheless, there are no clear-cut categories of power. If we have an absolute monarch who is approachable, open-minded, empathetic, humble, friendly, and wise - let's take as an example the notion of a "King of Kings" like Jesus the Christ, or Aragorn of Arathorn in J.R.R. Tolkien's ringlore - the public may actually enjoy great freedom and security, prosperity and success under such benevolent and enlightened rule. As opposed to the situation where a supposedly democratic government functions under the secret orders of an invisible brotherhood of black magicians and decadent junior gods: people would endure increasing oppression and never know who exactly is taking away their freedoms and rights, life just seems to get rougher and tougher all the time.

Courtesy of Bodohland

The concept of government itself needs to be reassessed. An individual with sufficient inner discipline can be described as a Self-Governing Individual who does not subscribe to or support any form of external government. When enough such individuals emerge in a community, it's possible that anarchy will blossom in a wholesome and workable way where each member of the community cooperates with the others consciously, willingly, and wholeheartedly. Imagine the amount of creativity generated by humans no longer engrossed in destructivity or obsessed with conformity and homogeneity.

One can view government as an unwelcome intrusion - akin to a high fence built around the crest of hill to prevent people from rolling down through carelessness. In trying to ensure "public safety" what government effectively does is disempower and desensitize. After a few generations, people would become incapable of taking any initiative whatsoever, in a sure-footed way. They will NEED official guidelines, clearly-marked trails, and instructions at every turn. In effect, people would no longer be able to sit quietly atop the hill and gain divine inspiration from the beauty around them – because the man-made “security” fence mars the view and is ugly, that is, a violation of the natural environment and the unwritten laws of harmony. This may suit those in power very nicely, but it invariably incapacitates the masses from independent and original thought. They will become blind and allow themselves to be led around by ravenous wolves disguised as professional seeing-eye dogs.

What would be much "better than" democracy would be an evolutionary quantum jump that would effectively upgrade Consciousness and Intelligence and realign them with Compassion. No amount of theorizing can make this happen. Those of us who realize this simply have to embody our ideals and break free of semantic traps such as the question above. No statistics are required. It only takes ONE individual to crack the code - and before long, not only the entire species, but all lifeforms will regain their primordial freedom.

"Drug control is a thin pretext, and getting thinner, to increase police powers and to brand dissent as criminal." - William S. Burroughs, @ 1971

[Originally published on this blog 19 March 2007, reposted 27 March 2009 & 25 September 2016]

Hey, Ma, I've Joined The Secret Service...

From Anarcho-Communist to Born-Again Entrepreneur

I've done a lot of crazy things in my life. A few days ago I did another. I acted on a spur of the moment decision and became a member of the Secret Service. That's right, friends, I'm now a Secret Agent. And if you're among the millions who have been shown The Secret - the sensational smash-hit DVD that's now #1 at Amazon.com, you'll know what this really means. That's right, I'm now a born-again digital-age capitalist entrepreneur!

Those who have known me since my youthful days of transcendental rebellion will recall that my political stance was a solipsistic variation of anarcho-communism. I strongly believed in the value of Individual Freedom - while powerfully drawn to vague notions of egalitarianism, universal justice, and plain honesty. Lao-tzu said the best government is the least government. I still say self-government is the only tolerable form of government.

In later years this became a robust belief that one achieves the most by embodying one's ideals: that, essentially, we can only change from within. My life strategy was to minimize overheads and maximize my independence from compulsory routine and wage slavery; aspire towards a minimalist ecological footprint, attain optimum elegance and grace as I journey through life. In other words, consume less and produce more, give back as much as I take, at the very least. From that perspective I viewed a big fat bank account as irrelevant - even antagonistic - to my evolution as a conscious soul. Like many others mystically inclined, I valued the metaphysical above the physical. I embraced the abstract idea of limitless wealth without equating it to money, per se. Wealth means well-being, and I like the concept of "commonwealth" - wherein we instinctively recognize the synergetic advantages of win-win scenarios over win-lose or no-win - and therefore spontaneously choose to cooperate rather than compete.

But I was constantly frustrated by never having enough cash to fund my dreams.

In my more hot-headed days I could empathize with the militant anger of all those forced to play the part of "loser." It was easy to understand why some opt to destroy the stagnant Status Quo - rather than focus on creating a more dynamic, organic, and wholesome one.

I still feel it's far more aesthetic - and ethical - to find our pleasure in creative passion rather than consumptive greed. But folks who have to constantly worry about where their next meal is coming from are more likely to start evolving aesthetically and ethically only after their basic creature comforts are secured. In effect, once people feel truly abundant and fulfilled, it naturally follows that they will be attracted to nobler and subtler qualities.

Along comes the runaway success of The Secret - and, inspired by it, the Secret Science of Getting Rich. A few years ago, the idea of "getting rich" would have struck me as pretty vulgar. I'd have been embarrassed to even admit I was involved in some slick permutation of MLM. But the deed is done, the cash investment made. I can no longer blame Society, Bad Government, or Human Stupidity for my unimpressive bank balance. Net worth unknown. Potential unactualized. Dreams unfulfilled. Enough of that!

And so it makes perfect sense for me to consciously shift to a tack I have never before attempted: that is, to initiate income-raising ventures, rather than merely subsist on a few crumbs swept from the banquet table of the Rich, Famous, and Privileged. As Osho once sagely pointed out: communism and capitalism are two ends of the same stick. Or, rather, two ends of an energy loop. Without capital, what can a red-blooded commie share with his or her comrades - apart from doctrine and ideology? Any true-blue capitalist will tell you the only way wealth can be sustained is to keep redistributing it and let it circulate freely through the system. In that respect, the consummate capitalist becomes the ultimate communist.

Next time you bump into me, you'd better run - cause I'm gonna look and sound like an American snake-oil salesman. Nah.... just kidding. The only change you'll find is that I'll be a lot more aware of the thought-forms I'm running in my operating system ;-)