Is the direct democracy possible?

Abstract

Until now, in educated circles, the idea of the possibility of the direct democracy, reminiscent of the Athenian of those ancient times, is wandering, but in practice nothing comes out even among anarchists. Nevertheless, the computer technologies, as it seems, finally provided a resource in the form of social networks, inaccessible earlier, to do without false and negligent intermediaries who somehow always are being ended up in the representativeorgans, and after the elections did not even think to fulfill the promises made to voters.

Key words: democracy, people, philistines, consciousness, self-consciousness, person, civilization, power, creativity, opposition.

Generally speaking, the term "democracy" itself is nothing more than a fiction, since the power of the people during the existence of civilization has never manifested itself in the form of equal representation of all segments of the population in power structures. Only the power of impostors was being appeared, envoys of individual dominant groups or supposedly representatives of the people, who immediately separated from the population, pursuing, first of all, their own goals.
Yes, and the people themselves simply could not become power in one form or another, since the very concept of the “people” does not mean anything. The fact is that the entire mass of the population of a particular country represents groups so different in their intentions and interests that they reach complete misunderstanding among themselves and even hostility.
In addition, the people of any country, glorified at all crossroads, are mostly the philistines, indifferent to everything except themselves. There are at least 80 percent of them. The number of these, mostly ordinary people, includes not only oppressed workers of various kinds, who, in fact, have not to live, but to survive, but also a large part of the intelligentsia due to the fact that it is on maintenance those in power (see, for example. the article “What is the true difference between intellectuals and the intelligentsia?” Nizovtsev Yu. M. Magazine “Topos". RF. 02.09.2022).

All this quite clearly indicates that this part of the population, occupied only with themselves for objective reasons, does not at all pretend to be in power and even very often does not know who is in power, at best, collecting gossip about their rulers, and voting obediently for those who are pointed out by certain means of propaganda (see, for example, the article “What underlies the passivity of the philistines?” Nizovtsev Yu. M. Magazine “Topos”. RF. 11/07/2023).
However, the philistines carry within themselves not only a negative charge. They represent the dynamite that, when the appropriate fuse is triggered, explodes, sometimes bringing completely unexpected consequences for the whole world, as happened, for example, in such a purely peasant country as Russia in 1917, when these illiterate or semi-literate peasants, dressed in soldiers' greatcoats, and whose patriotic impulse had long since passed, came to the practical understanding of the pointlessness of participating in the war for the Dardanelles, that is, for interests alien to them, in the absence of the opportunity to run own household, which was gradually falling apart without the battling owners.
They wanted the end of the war and land reform in their favor. In other words, the accumulated dissatisfaction of their lowest (natural) consciousness with the disastrous situation, as well as the self-consciousness naturally demanding justice, wanted an immediate resolution of the situation, especially since this seemed possible due to the presence of rifles in their hands.
It was this reason that served as the basis for the defeat of the February bourgeois revolution of 1917 in Russia already in the autumn of the same year, the victory of which did not lead the immediate end of the war and the implementation of reforms in favor of the peasants. The logical result of this policy of the Russian bourgeoisie, which came to power, was the almost bloodless coming to power in November of the same year of a relatively small extremist Bolshevik party, fueled by utopian hopes for a quick victory of the world revolution with the resulting all kinds of benefits for everyone without exception. The Bolsheviks believed that everyone could be brought to these benefits by force and appropriate propaganda.
It was not difficult for the Bolsheviks to win over the peasants in greatcoats, promising to immediately end the war, give them land for free, and then place them in an earthly communist paradise (see, for example, the essay “On the essence of the people in its manifestation in riots and revolutions.” Nizovtsev Yu. M. Magazine “Topos". RF. 05.29.2024).

The representatives of the layer of the creative people do not pretend to power and are not particularly interested in those in power, but for a different reason. They are always busy with something more interesting and promising for them - searching for more effective technical solutions, trying to discover new laws in the field of science and art, developing culture, and improving the living conditions of the population.
It was they who, quite quickly in terms of the scale of evolution - in a few thousand years - brought civilization from the use of arrows, spears and hoes to space flight, communication at any imaginable distance, comfortable living conditions in various climatic zones, and gave the highest examples of poetry, prose, theatrical and visual art (see, for example, the article “Who really makes the main contribution to the development of civilization?” Nizovtsev Yu. M. Magazine “Topos”. RF. 03/18/2024).
However, after the emergence of a civilization based on property rights, there were always contenders for the power, and of the same “breed,” using any methods to achieve power, by no means moral ones – from pressure and brute military force up to deceiving the population. True, democratic elections are now being held from many candidates, but for some reason they are being turned out to be envoys or representatives of already formed power elites, preserving for them power and the corresponding opportunities to continue to exploit the population, wage wars for resources and fight with each other for dominance among themselves and in the world for the sake of, again, their own pleasant life in accordance with the sensations received from all conceivable benefits together with their numerous servants, thereby resembling the upper strata of an ordinary pack of monkeys.
But this did not bother and does not bother the ruling elite at all, since sensations always dominate in the consciousness of its representatives. Indeed, the representatives of any ruling elite possess such not bad qualities as energy, sufficient education or experience, a high degree of sociability, determination, quick-wittedness, dominance, cunning, curiosity, persistence, the ability to coordinate actions, which is also characteristic of the highest primates.
At the same time, it is difficult to deny that, to one degree or another, these people in their self-consciousness, which is not limited to assessing only sensations, are much worse than primates. They are self-interested, hypocritical, insidious, unprincipled, dishonest and unusually dodgy. And it is understandable the possession of such negative features, without which it is unlikely that anyone could stay at the height of power, where it is difficult to climb, but easy to fall.
The ruling elite receives all the resources of the state at its disposal, it would seem, for the purposes of developing the country, caring for all citizens.
However, the above-mentioned negative selection of civil servants from the president to the last clerk and other "gray cardinals" of power is an obstacle to this.
Nevertheless, these unworthy people, together with the same personnel serving them – from security forces up to officials – have always been in power in all countries of the world for several thousand years, but, strange as it may seem at first glance, the development of civilization is proceeding at a rapid pace, and the reason for this paradoxical circumstance is quite simple: in society there are always people, more or less of them, but they, again, due to their mentality, that is, the peculiarities of self-consciousness, cannot help but look, at least with condemnation, at the antics of the rulers, thereby constituting the opposition.
This informal opposition itself does not lay claim to the current power, understanding that inclusion in the existing power structure, which always strives to extract, first of all, benefits for itself from the population under its control, will make them the same scoundrels. Therefore, on the contrary, they oppose it, at a minimum, fighting for the rights of the exploited population, and at a maximum, for the reconstruction of society into a structure that is fair for everyone. It is they, despite their utopian views, who, at critical moments in history, try to involve ordinary people in one or another form of struggle to overthrow the oppressors, and it is thanks to their efforts that morals are gradually softening, and reforms are carried out that make work and life easier for the population as a whole (see, for example, the essay “Why are countries ruled by the unworthy people?” Nizovtsev Yu. M. Magazine “Topos”. RF. 02.07.2024).
Thus, the representatives of this informal opposition to the ruling elites both earlier and now,, despite all the negative historical experience, have been trying to harmonize the social order, although the initial equality of all people, in which all progressives believed immutable, refuted relatively recently by scientists by the fact, that all people differ in their consciousness both on the basis of certain differences in genotype and especially significantly in the structure of the brain, and therefore it is impossible to equalize them, since they understand justice, their own merits and the concept of freedom, the opposite of justice, differently (see, for example, the essay “What role does inequality play in human communities?” Nizovtsev Yu. M. Magazine “Topos”. RF. 13.04.2024).
Another attempt by representatives of the informal opposition to establish so-called "direct democracy" is the use of the social networks, which have been widely developed in many countries of the world in recent years, covering a significant part of the educated population, which, through these networks, as this part believes, can nominate their proven and honest candidates to power, and they will finally be able to reflect all aspirations of the masses and reorganize society, smoothing out, at least, its glaring contradictions.
Therefore, let us take a look at social networks and evaluate their effectiveness in terms of harmonizing society.
The social networks are now a kind of platform on the Internet, which are used in this virtual world for dating at any physical distance, creating special relationships and connections between people with similar goals and interests.
In the social networks, you can exchange information using a set of different services and programs, thereby increasing your awareness, education, professional training, and also forming groups of people united by common interests or goals for direct communication with each other.
Thus, the social networks allow to create user profiles, establish connections, exchange information, create communities, thereby becoming one of the most powerful tools for organizing connections, direct communication, and exchange information at any distance.
The social networks are characterized by the availability and relevance of content, acting, moreover, so that many users receive information from many sources.
Over time, there has been a growth in the public organizations and flows that use the social networks in the course of developing the critical situations and for the promotion of their ideas, especially since the social networks allow for a clear comparison of one's own standard of living, moods and views with masses of distant people, tearing them out of the circle of a hateful and monotonous life and creating the prospect of a more fulfilling and interesting way of life.
Naturally, the exchange of information leads to an awareness of the mendacity, incompetence and worthlessness of the ruling elites, and the desire to nominate honest, intelligent and professional candidates to replace them, thereby replacing the multi-stage election process with the direct democracy.
All this, of course, suggests that this kind of technology, which, at first glance, will finally enable the masses to realize their desires to really manage the development of society towards the equality of its members, equalizing their economic and cultural situation, and also rid him of the well-known ulcers of capitalism and parasitic authorities, quite capable at this stage of the development of civilization to achieve harmonization of society, which dreamed of so many great guardians of humanity from Plato up to Marx.
At first glance, such an approach to the electoral process seems very promising, but aren't there too many "stumbling blocks" in this technology?
Let's first note that the use of such technologies is not available to all members of society due to age, insufficient literacy or poverty, automatically recording a gap between the bulk of the population and more or less advanced users of expensive computer technologies, thereby leaving behind the poorest and most disadvantaged part of the population, which should not just be benefited, but also raised in its cultural level and attracted to the electoral process with an understanding of nominating the most honest and professional candidates, but this is currently impossible.
As a result, a kind of elitism of computer technology users is formed, the majority of whom, due to their usual well-off life, are not inclined to enter into an open struggle with the cruel authorities, but rather are predisposed to compromise with them in one way or another.
Moreover, some of these users do not wish the oppressed masses well, but strive to come to power themselves on the wave of protests and take advantage of the privileges that it provides.
And there are many historical examples of this. What are the Labourites in Great Britain or the Bolsheviks in Russia worth, as well as numerous “democrats” in the developed countries of the world, who are still purposefully robbing the population of the underdeveloped countries of the world, making the population of their own countries by the immoral accomplices of this robbery, who are decomposing, receiving their share of this robbery, and therefore are not at all inclined to radical changes in the leadership.
The use of the social networks to implement the principle of the direct democracy and fight against oppressors is also complicated by the fact that social networks mainly include passive users, while new content and comments on it are written by few, and involvement in the network does not mean the participation of their users in real actions, for example, in demonstrations to promote their candidate for power structures.
Therefore, mostly the inexperienced young people are ready for real actions as a result of communication in the social networks, numerically not comparable with the number of the philistines who mainly vote in elections.
Of course, the social networks are also used by extremist groups, which, in essence, play with their actions into the hands of the authorities, which are gradually taking away the rights and freedoms of the entire population due to the provocative actions of these groups. The different levels of self-awareness of social network users do not contribute to their understanding of each other, dividing them into different groups that oppose each other.
The certain control that the ruling elites exercise over the social networks allows them, in particular, to filter the information in such a way as to intimidate and divide users, constantly throwing them messages aimed at justifying the actions of the authorities, which does not lead to an increase in the polarization of society in the direction of increasing the activity of those who hate the authorities, but to the degradation of society due to the fact that passive users prefer to remain in the virtual world rather than take active actions in the real world.
Technologically, the influence of those in power on the social networks is currently reaching the point that it practically allows them to control any user of a social network and impose any ideology on users, especially the young people or the bored philistines.
The authorities, using various kinds of manipulations, can easily substitute their candidates for elections in the role of honest and noble defenders of the people, and also, having control over the elections, adjust the results of electronic voting in their favor.
It is also not difficult for the ruling elites to liquidate unwanted social networks or reorient them towards an audience susceptible to propaganda, in particular, by creating panic against the backdrop of some terrible incident, and to act as the savior of the people.
In addition, in the social networks, as in any society, it is not the smartest and noblest who rule the roost, but rather primitive, loud, cunning and self-confident individuals who, in fact, strive in their blogs only to earn as much money as possible, and not to promote certain political ideas for, in general, akin to them audience, also not distinguished by great mind, but sensitive to simple pleasures, praise and various kinds of primitive game proposals or simple glorification, far from calls for the establishment of people's power and the organization of the fight against oppressors.
Thus, it is clear that the social networks provide, first of all, the opportunity to express themselves to a much larger number of people, previously completely inaccessible, but there is no mass involvement of the social network users in a real fight with the ruling elites instead of floundering in the virtual world.

In fact, instead of establishing the direct democracy, the social networks are only capable of criticizing the authorities and organizing certain events, the peak of which are, for example, anti-racial protests or rather artificial velvet revolutions, fraught with only coups, and not a radical change in the conditions of existence, and which are inspired and supported by the ruling elites of other countries, since they are beneficial to them, and not to the oppressed aborigines. who, as always, end up on the losing side.
However, the lack of opportunity for the social networks to implement the direct democracy does not mean their inability to push the authorities towards urgent social reforms, which in itself indicates an increase in the level of self-consciousness of the most active part of society, caused by a general increase in the degree of technological and cultural development of society, despite the presence of antagonistic contradictions in society and the passivity of the majority of the population.
Thus, the attempt to apply "direct democracy" by means of the social networks to create a fair people's state, which, however, is nothing more than an illusion, like direct democracy itself, is just an external expression of the struggle of the collectivist lowest (natural) and highest (self-consciousness) forms of consciousness of any community, outwardly expressed in confrontation the selfish power elite and the altruistic informal opposition to it, the result of which is the accelerated development of the community.
This development can be either evolutionary - in the case of the possibility of compromise between these two forces, or revolutionary, that is, uncompromising, when a significant mass of population, but not just the informal opposition, begins to experience, in addition to dissatisfaction with living conditions, resulting from the dissatisfaction of the collectivist natural consciousness with the circumstances that have arisen, a desire to establish more just interpersonal relations, and then to provide greater civil liberties, which is caused by an increase in the general level of self-consciousness in the masses, who for this reason are already capable of supporting the informal opposition, demanding radical changes that the ruling elite is not capable of, and it is eliminated in one way or another.
Therefore, the social networks can play a significant role in the preparation and implementation of a revolution, characterized by a qualitative change in economic relations, that is, a sudden transition to an overdue, more productive relations in society, only in the case when the overwhelming majority of the philistines, driven to extremes in their natural consciousness by hunger, cold, wars and other abuses of their lives, reflected also in their self- consciousness, demanding at least justice and a return to normal living conditions, support the informal opposition, which will notify all users about this through social networks, and they, having propagandized military units and the police, which, as is known, consist of the same philistines, will sweep away the ruling elites.
In other words, during a revolution, the lowest (natural) form of consciousness and self-consciousness, which usually oppose each other due to the fact that the former is concerned only with its own well-being, while self-consciousness, in contrast to it, has a largely altruistic orientation, unite due to a threat to their own existence, seeking to eliminate the worthless ruling elite.
True, all the revolutions known to us ended with the formation of new ruling elites, which differed little from the previous ones in their essence, which boiled down, first of all, to caring for oneself, maintaining and expanding one's power, leaving everything else in the background, which was mentioned above.
This kind of injustice towards the population's hopes for a better life, in fact, prevents stagnation into the general goodness, and this stagnation is only happening with the complete dominance of the collective over the personal, meaning nothing more than the end of development of this society, since the individual loses the freedom of his own expression, including creative, as happens in all sects.
Therefore, development is not promoted by justice and harmony, which both the masses and all progressives so desire, but by incessant contradictions in society, which arouse in the consciousness of people the desire to free themselves from them, giving scope for free expressions and actions, thanks to which everything is created, but also everything is destroyed, however so, that society gradually moves forward within the framework of civilization.
That is, the force that makes society move forward is the confrontation between the egocentric form of the lower (natural) consciousness and another form of purely human consciousness - self-consciousness with its altruistic tendency to harmonize society, which manifests itself differently depending on the level of the altruistic component of collectivist self-consciousness.
The smooth (evolutionary) course of technological and cultural development of the corresponding community, characterized by a more or less uniform growth in the level of both personal and collectivist self-awareness, can be interrupted by stagnation, when this growth temporarily stops due to retrograde actions of the ruling elites or unfavorable external influences (wars, natural disasters).
Stagnation is replaced either by the disintegration of the community with its annexation to other communities, or by a break in stagnation, leading either to reforms or to a fundamental change in relations in the given community, that is, a revolution, and it occurs in the case of a sufficiently high level of dissatisfaction of the collectivist self-consciousness of the population with a long-term situation of stagnation, depriving members of society of self-activity, and if such dissatisfaction of self-consciousness merges with an extreme degree of dissatisfaction of the collectivist natural consciousness of the population with the standard of living or fatal mistakes of the ruling elite, as a result of which this level only falls, or the life of the population is put at risk.