>Democracy is just temporary dictatorship We need to get rid of the parties system First we need to establish why we live in a forced democracy. For all the problems of hunter gatherer mode, such as wanton infanticide, practical zero technological innovation… we can all agree the issue of egalitarianism is much better than in our current set up… As [[Alan Moore]] would say, we live in an [[Anarchy]], so that is why he is an anarchist. He says there is no one with their hands on the rudder stealing the ship, it is all chaotic. I agree. The trouble is our modern day anarchism is overlaid within a false statehood. [[Statism]] are essentially a continuation of [[feudalism ]] **Greek Criticisms of Democracy** The ancient Greeks, despite pioneering democratic governance, recognised its vulnerabilities and articulated substantial critiques, many of which focused on the potential for corruption, instability, and inequality within democratic systems. These criticisms are particularly striking given their relevance to modern democratic debates. ### **1. Susceptibility to Demagogues** Greek critics like [[Plato]], Aristotle, and Thucydides frequently highlighted the dangers of demagoguery: • **Plato’s Warnings**: In _The Republic_, Plato argued that democracy’s emphasis on freedom creates fertile ground for manipulative leaders. Demagogues, appealing to the desires and fears of the masses, can exploit public sentiment for personal power. He foresaw democracy as often devolving into tyranny. • **Thucydides on Cleon**: The historian Thucydides described how figures like Cleon used inflammatory rhetoric to gain influence, prioritising personal ambition over the city’s well-being. ### **2. Rule of the Uninformed Masses** Democracy’s egalitarian nature assumes that all citizens are equally equipped to govern: • **Plato’s “Ship of State” Analogy**: Plato likened democracy to a ship controlled by an untrained crew, arguing that leadership requires knowledge and expertise, not mere popularity. • **Aristotle’s Critique**: Aristotle classified democracy as a deviant form of government because decisions made by the majority might reflect the interests of the poor or uneducated at the expense of broader societal needs. ### **3. Instability and Factionalism** Athenian democracy often struggled with internal divisions: • **Short-Term Thinking**: Critics argued that democracies tended to prioritise policies with immediate appeal while neglecting long-term consequences, as evidenced by the catastrophic Sicilian Expedition. • **Factional Conflict**: Aristotle noted that democracies frequently fell victim to factionalism, where competing groups vied for power rather than pursuing collective harmony. ### **4. Moral and Ethical Weaknesses** • **Execution of Socrates**: The trial and death of Socrates demonstrated how democracies could succumb to the whims of the majority, punishing dissenting voices and intellectual critique. • **Cultural Pressure**: Even in the absence of formal authoritarianism, social conformity and peer pressure could stifle individuality and innovation. ## **Comparing Post-Agricultural Hierarchical States with Egalitarian Hunter-Gatherer Societies** The Greek critiques of democracy provide an interesting lens through which to compare hierarchical state systems—common after the agricultural revolution—with the egalitarian structures of hunter-gatherer societies. These two systems differ fundamentally in their approaches to governance, social cohesion, and power dynamics. ### **1. Power and Leadership** • **Egalitarian Hunter-Gatherer Societies**: • Leadership was often temporary, situational, and based on merit, such as skill in hunting or conflict resolution. • Authority was decentralised, and decisions were typically made through consensus. Leaders had limited coercive power. • Social norms, rather than formal laws, maintained order. Shared values and mutual dependence discouraged hierarchy. • **Hierarchical State Systems**: • The rise of agriculture created surplus wealth, enabling the emergence of centralised authority and permanent leadership. • States relied on coercive mechanisms (e.g., taxation, military force) to maintain order and control large populations. • Leadership often became hereditary or institutionalised, reducing accountability and concentrating power. ### **2. Social Inequality** • **Hunter-Gatherer Societies**: • Resources were shared, with little accumulation of personal wealth. Egalitarianism was reinforced by cultural norms such as gift-giving and communal ownership. • Labour was divided by skill or need, not rigid hierarchies. • **Hierarchical States**: • Agricultural surpluses allowed for wealth accumulation, leading to stratification and the emergence of elites. • Inequality became entrenched, with rigid class systems (e.g., rulers, priests, labourers) and disparities in resource access. ### **3. Conflict and Decision-Making** • **Hunter-Gatherers**: • Disputes were resolved informally, often through dialogue or mediation. Persistent conflict could lead to social ostracism or group fission. • Decisions were collective, fostering inclusion but requiring compromise and patience. • **State Systems**: • Centralised states formalised conflict resolution through legal systems, but these systems often favoured the elite. • The concentration of power enabled rapid decision-making but increased the risk of authoritarianism and exploitation. ### **4. Resilience and Sustainability** • **Hunter-Gatherers**: • Their mobility and lack of permanent structures made them resilient to environmental changes. Egalitarianism supported flexible adaptation to resource scarcity. • Small-scale societies avoided large-scale [[War|warfare]], though conflicts could still occur. • **States**: • Hierarchical systems supported large-scale projects (e.g., infrastructure, armies) but were vulnerable to resource depletion, rebellion, and systemic collapse. • Centralisation allowed for coordination but often led to environmental exploitation and unsustainable growth. **Insights from Comparison** 1. **Challenges of Egalitarianism in Scale**: Greek democracy, like hunter-gatherer societies, struggled to maintain egalitarian principles as populations grew. Consensus-based governance becomes harder to manage in larger, more complex societies. 2. **Tensions Between Freedom and Order**: Both hierarchical states and democracies face a delicate balance between individual autonomy and collective cohesion. The Greeks feared that democracy, like hunter-gatherer systems, might sacrifice order for freedom. 3. **Sustainability of Ideals**: Egalitarian societies rely on cultural norms and shared values to sustain themselves, while hierarchical systems institutionalise power dynamics, making them harder to reform but more stable in the short term. **Conclusion** The Greeks’ critiques of democracy reflect a broader historical tension between egalitarian ideals and the practical challenges of governance in large, complex societies. While hierarchical state systems offered stability and efficiency, they often entrenched inequality and exploitation. Egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, by contrast, provided a template for cooperative living but struggled with scalability and sustained cohesion. Le Guin’s notion of “ambiguous utopias” resonates here: neither system is perfect, but both offer valuable lessons for imagining alternative ways of organising society. [[Communism]] [[Communes]]