Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Beyond CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, ANARCHISM :

AuTo - NARCHY,

The ULTImate DEMOcracy.

Introduction.

In 1991 the Soviet Union, one of the world's two Superpowers, ceased to exist.
It was dissolved by its own Parliament. Opposition to this step was minimal.
Most people in the Soviet Union supported the demise of their State.
Ever since the Soviet Union was born in the Russian Revolution of October 1917 many people all over the world saw it as the Socialist alternative to Capitalism.
This was so because the Soviet Union replaced private ownership of industry, commerce, and agriculture, by State ownership of the entire economy.
Socialism was based on the assumption that State ownership of the economy will put an end to oppression, exploitation, inequality.

This assumption was refuted by history. State ownership of the entire economy existed for decades in the Soviet Union, and in all 'People's Democracy' States but failed to end economic and political misery.
It did not abolish oppression, exploitation, inequality.
It replaced Capitalism by a dictatorship of State and Party officials.

Those who oppose oppression, exploitation, and inequality must now suggest an alternative to Socialism as well as to Capitalism, to Nationalisation as well as to Privatisation.
The pamphlet addresses this need.

Socialism (and Anarchism) emerged during the industrial revolution.
Socialist and Anarchist thinkers were the first to consider the impact of industrialization on society, morality, and politics. They revolutionized political thinking 150 years ago. Today we undergo a revolution of the means of communication but Socialist and Anarchist thinking ignores the impact of this revolution on politics. It is stuck where its founders put it 150 years ago.
This pamphlet suggests a new way of running a State and an Economy by applying the electronic communication revolution to decision making.
This opens up political possibilities unimaginable a mere 20 years ago.

An establishment political thinker recently wrote :
" Some form of managed Capitalism and a rather diluted, not very participatory liberal democracy, is what history has in store for mankind, and that is that... dreams of a leap into some radically new world have to be abandoned."
{ Alan Ryan, Warden of New College, Oxford, "Whatever happened to the Left" The New York Review of Books, Oct. 17, 1996. p. 42 }

This pamphlet proposes a leap into a democracy so participatory as to make all former political systems look like so many varieties of dictatorship.
If enough people desire this system the 21st Century will be very different from a
"rather diluted, not very participatory liberal democracy ".

Dare you consider a new alternative to Capitalism\Socialism\Anarchism, a direct democracy running State\Work\Study without representatives of any sort ?

A.ORR
The pamphlet consists of four articles :
1. Auto-narchy - DirectDemocracy for the 21st Century.
2. Is Auto-narchy possible ?
3. From A-narchy to Auto-narchy
4. What is to be done ?





May 1, 1996

AUTO-NARCHY - DirectDemocracy For the 21st Century.

Briefly
The collapse of the Soviet Union has driven many to conclude that all alternatives to Capitalism are bound to fail and no alternative to Capitalism is ever possible.
Ethnic wars erupting after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia led many to conclude that the only solution to ethnic strife is by creating separate nation-states for each ethnic group.
These conclusions are premature.

1. The Soviet Union was ruled by a handful of leaders, and an appointed, unaccountable, self-perpetuating, bureaucracy. All decisions on politics, economics, and culture, were made by a few officials. 99% of the population were denied authority to make political decisions.Domination of politics, economics, and culture by a few officials is not an attractive alternative to Capitalism.It is a dictatorship of State and Party officials.
Today we can have a political system far more democratic than Capitalism and far more egalitarian than Socialism.
Today we can have a State where every citizen can vote at any moment directly - without representatives - on every decision of the State, Work, Study.
A State based on the right of every citizen to propose and vote on every political decision is an
Auto-narchy meaning self - rule.
Auto-narchy must be applied to work and study as well. All employees must have the right to propose and vote on every decision related to their work, and students/staff/parents must have the right to propose and vote on all decisions concerning education.
Innovations in electronic communication since 1980 make such a system possible.

2. Strife between nations, races, tribes, or religious denominations, stems from persecution, discrimination, and laws granting group-rights to one group while denying them to others.
The solution to such strife is not by separating the groups and creating separate states for each group but by laws granting minorities all group-rights enjoyed by the majority. Such laws establish a pluralistic state which treats all groups as equals irrespective of their size.

3. The core of every political system is a priority principle. It determins perference, and provides justification and motivation for individuals functioning in that system.
The priority principle of Capitalism is private self-centredness.
The priority principle of racism is racial self-centredness.
The priority principle of sexism is sexual self-centredness.
Theocracy stems from religious self-centredness.
Nationalism stems from ethnic self-centredness.
The priority principle of Auto-narchy is:
Needs of the poorest must be attended before needs of the less poor.
Needs of the sickest must be attended before needs of the less sick.
Excepting these two needs of the many must be attended before needs of the few.
Protecting species from extinction and Nature from destruction and pollution are compulsory.
All people, despite all differences between them, have equal political authority.

Auto-narchy is political Humanism, it rejects the priority of any self-centredness. It strives for :
1. A state run directly by all citizens and places of work run directly by all employees.
2. A law granting minority groups every group-right granted to the majority.
3. Active opposition to all discrimination and oppression.

Clarification.
1. Socialism or Auto-narchy ?

"Socialism" has many meanings. Anyone using this term must provide a clear definition.
It isn't enough to speak of "Social Justice" since "Justice" has many meanings too.
It is inadequate to speak about "a regime which has abolished exploitation" since it isn't clear what exploitation means where State ownership of the economy has replaced private ownership. It is'nt enough to define oneself politically by struggling against evils of an existing political system, one must propose an alternative political system to replace the one breeding the injustices. Opposing oppression and exploitation without proposing an alternative political system leaves the ruling system intact. The system acts, the opposition reacts. Those who struggle against evils of a political system but do not offer an alternative to that system are politically impotent.
Anyone struggling to replace a political system must propose a clear, positive, alternative system to replace the rejected system.

The Socialist alternative to Capitalism is:"State ownership of the entire economy".
All regimes based on this principle have degenerated into dictatorships of officials.
This is not an accidental outcome due to special cicumstances. It is a structural feature of any State and Economy run by representatives, be they political leaders, officials, or experts.
In all Socialist States (and Parties) political power is in the hands of a few political leaders.
'Power' is authority to make decisions. 'Political Power' is authority to make decisions binding an entire society. In Socialist states 99% of the citizens cannot influence decisions affecting every aspect of their lives. All decisions are made by a few leaders. There is an immense, inherent, inequality in political power between leaders and led in all Socialist states and Parties.
Socialist thinkers searched for a political system based on equality without exploitation or oppression but rule by representatives, hierarchical leadership, and State rule of the economy in all socialist States and Parties, produced dictatorships of a few leaders.
'Socialism' is inextricably associated with a dictatorship of Party leaders.
Nobody wants to live in such a system today.

All Political systems are based on priority principles.
The priority principle of original Socialism was Equality.
Its motto :"Treat all people as equals despite all differences between them".
Communists applied equality to ownership, SocialDemocrats - to social opportunities. Communists insisted on State ownership of the economy, so as to abolish inequality of property owned. Social-Democrats established state funded education and health services to provide equal opportunity for further development of all citizens.

Both failed to abolish economic and political inequality and misery.
None of them applied equality to political authority or to authority at work, at study, or in the family.
Socialist Anarchists insist on equality of authority but oppose any State. Their alternative to Capitalism is federation of self-managed communes aiding each other. They still disagree on the structure of decision-making in their communes.
This is inadequate for running a modern industrial society.
Auto-narchy applies equality not to ownership but to political authority in a State.
Auto-narchy means equal authority of every citizen to decide every issue of State, Work, Education.
Applying equality to authority in the State means :
Every citizen has the right to propose and to vote on every political decision.
No extra political authority to any citizen at any time.

Without equal political authority of every citizen all the time there is no democracy.
Equality of authority at work means that all employees have the right to propose and vote on every decision related to their work. This includes all decisions on profits, investments, hiring and firing.
Applying Auto-narchy at the place of study means that educational staff, students, and students' parents, have equal authority to decide all matters of education.
Applying equality to authority in the family means that wife and husband have equal authority to make all decisions of the family, and from a certain age so have the children.
The system known today as "Democracy" allows citizens to decide who will make political decisions on their behalf. This makes people believe they decide how their society is run. It creates the illusion that they are free. Voters do not run society nor are they free.
Voters are free only to decide who will decide for them.
They have to live by decisions made by representatives hence they are not free.
People are free only when they live according to decisions made by themselves.
People can never be completely free in society. In any society, even in the smallest anarchist commune, everyone's freedom is limited by other people's freedom.
For a society to be viable its members must agree to overcome disagreements by majority decisions which limit the minority's freedom. A society cannot be run by consensus.
Representative Democracy is freedom to decide who will make decisions on behalf of others.
Elections grant political authority to representatives.
Free elections are freedom to choose rulers. You are free to decide who will decide for you.
This is preferable to Monarchy or Dictatorship where a single, unelected, person decides for everyone else, but it is not political freedom.
Political freedom exists only when every citizen has the right to decide every political issue.

Rule by representatives is legitimized by two arguments:
1.
It is technically impossible for all citizens to vote on every political decision.
2.
Political decisions require skills most citizens lack.

The first argument has become obsolete after the recent revolution in the means of communication.
The second argument was always false.
Let us examine the second argument.
To decide is to choose. To "make a decision" means "to choose one out of a number of possibilities".
If only one possibility is available there is nothing to choose and hence nothing to decide.
When two possibilities are available we have to decide\choose which to accept.
To decide is to choose. To choose is to prefer. Preference is not a matter of expertise.
It is a matter of priorities. Expertise is required for clarifying the possibilities available, and for predicting the outcome of a choice.
Predicting an outcome is very different from choosing an outcome.
Predicting requires expertise. Choosing is a matter of preference.
There is no expertise for preference, nor can there ever be.
Preferences stem from priority principles, not from expertise.
When a doctor tells a patient:'If you accept my proposals you'll live, if you dont you'll die', it is the patient, a non-expert, who has to choose. The doctor, an expert, only explains the possibilities.
Patients' choices depend on their preferences, not on expertise.
Many prefer death to life as disabled, in pain, or in prison.
Millions prefer 'Death before Dishonour', or 'To die for God/King/Country/Freedom'.
There are no 'Objective' criteria to determine preference.
Preference depends on priority principles, which are arbitrary.
Personal survival is not, nor was it ever, an ultimate priority principle.

The citizens of Athens discussed - 25 centuries ago - whether political decision-making requires a special talent or skill. Their conclusion was: "Every cook can govern".
Although they excluded slaves and women they chose their rulers by lot.
Extending this to our era means: every person, whatever her/his knowledge or experience, is as good as any other when it comes to prefer\choose between political options.
The Athenians applied this to their politics, they invented demos-cratia. Rule by the population.

Can those believing that political decision-making requires special skills tell us what special skills, or talents, do John Major, Tony Blair, Kohl, Chirac, Yeltsin or Clinton, have, that qualify them to make political decisions on behalf of millions?

2. Some History.

Rule by direct voting in meetings of soldiers, workers, and peasants, emerged spontaneously in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 and was crushed by Lenin who came to power in 1917 by advocating this form of governance.
The reappearance of the demand for equal authority to decide matters of State, Work, Education, occured during the general strike in France in May 1968.
This strike - the greatest in history, in scope and significance - paralyzed France in 1968. It began by Paris students protesting against outdated University regulations. The police attacked the students with truncheons. The students fought back.
Battles between students and police lasted a few days. Young workers, outraged by police violence, came to help the students. Absence of young workers from the factories paralyzed production. Gradually other workers joined in. Transport workers, teachers, government employees, the entire education and health sectors and finally even the prostitutes...
An entire modern society ground to a standstill during a period of peace and economic prosperity. By the end of May 1968 everybody was on strike.
No political Party or Trade Union called for, or planned, this strike.
All Parties and Unions opposed it. Stranger still - the demands of the strike were not economic.

Why did the entire population of France stop working during a time of economic prosperity, peace, and free elections, without raising economic demands ?
The strike was utterly unexpected and more widespread than anyone had ever seen.
The strikers did not raise economic demands. Instead, meetings took place in universities, in neighbourhoods, factories, schools, hospitals, even in mental asylums.
These meetings began to manage their areas of concern. People discussed issues neglected or ignored by the authorities, and voted on proposals for improvements.
In schools, pupils, teachers, and parents, jointly discussed education and voted on proposals for improvements. Pupils had the same vote as parents or teachers.
This repeated itself everywhere. 'Action Committees' sprang up in neighbourhoods all over the country. 'Self-management' was the guiding principle.
France's President, General De-Gaul, panicked and fled to Germany trying to bring the French Army stationed there to surround Paris and crush the strike. Meetings of soldiers decided against this and it came to nothing.
Soldiers' decisions overuled the General's decisions. Generals can decide whatever they like, if soldiers make their own decisions they overule the Generals'.

Trade Unions' officials saw the strike as a threat to their authority. Why ?
When meetings of employees make all decisions concerning work Trade Unions become redundant. Owners too. This solves the ownership problem.
By making all decisions about their work employees become owners.
'Ownership' of something means authority to make all decisions about it.
Whoever has authority to make all decisions concerning X , owns X.
Ownership by employees is far more efficient than ownership by private or corporate owners.
Tedium and profit can be divided by common consent without strikes or unemployment.
No one knows work better than those who do it.
Employee Auto-narchy can consult experts to find out the possibilities available, but choosing between possibilities must be done by the employees, not by the experts, just as is done today by owners or their representatives who consult experts.
As for the Unions, they have long ago become fiefs of officials whose corruption stems from knowing that employees can represent themselves directly yet hiding this from the employees while hinting to employers that it is in their interest to negotiate with Union officials rather than directly with employees.
In modern industrial societies Union officials are concerned more with ruling employees than with serving employee interests. Meetings of employees can represent themselves directly far better than Union officials.
Trade Unions today are an essential component of Capitalism.
They are safety valves regulating tensions between employees and employers to keep Capitalism functioning. They stand - and fall - with the representative system.
Some Capitalists strive to replace Unions by private contracts with employees.
The regime of private contracts is worse than rule by Unions.
Both must be replaced by Employee Auto-narchy at work. Employee Auto-narchy on national, trade, and firm, level, can solve all econmic problems.
Trade Union officials will resist any attempt to change Capitalism and rule by representatives, into Auto-narchy. So will every employer.
The 'Action Committees' in France in May 1968 dealt also with general problems of society and took political decisions. This made Political Parties obsolete.
All Political Parties, including Communist Parties all over the world, fought viciously against the French strike. They called it "Student Hooliganism", witheld information about it, distorted facts, peddled lies. Why ?
When mass-meetings make political decisions they overule all representatives including Political Parties. When people vote directly on all political issues, representatives, be they individuals or Parties, lose their authority.
That is why in 1917 Lenin hurriedly changed the slogan that brought him to power :"All power to the workers and soldiers COUNCILS" into: "All power to the Bolshevik PARTY".
Lenin's Party crushed the workers councils, first legally (1918),later militarily (Kronstadt, 1921).
Trotsky led the military attack on the stikers in Kronstadt, and executed those taken prisoners...
In 1968, when the French Unions and Communist Party realized they lose credibility by opposing the strike, they joined it so as to take it over and use it for their own purposes. The French Communist Party ordered its Union, the C.G.T., to demand a wage increase to buy off the workers and stop the strike. Pompidou's government realized that the Communist Party wants to save itself, and the system of representatives, and agreed to a 15% increase of basic wages, plus a reduction in working hours.
To everybody's surprise the workers rejected this offer. They declared :
"We do'nt want a larger slice of the economic cake, we want to run the bakery".
This demand was, of course, rejected by the French government, by the Communist Party, and by the Unions. Accepting it would have made them all redundant.
Gradually, after weeks of strike people began to drift back to work and the strike gradually subsided. Why ?
The reason for the failure of this unique strike was the inability of the strikers to unify the decisions of all meetings all over the country into a single decision.
Society must have the means to unify many decisions into a single decision.
This is necessary for running an electricity grid, transport and communication systems, health and education services, etc. The main justification for Central Government is its role as unifyer of decisions.
The inability of the strikers to produce an alternative system for unifying many decisions taken all over the country into a single decision binding the entire society enabled the Central Government to reassert its authority. Gradually the old system of representatives in France reasserted itself.
Is this the end of the story ? NO WAY !
The motives for this strike have not disappeared. Quite the opposite.
The motives for the 1968 strike are stronger today than ever before, not only in France but everywhere. The 1968 strike in France was directed against antiquated authority relations, against hypocrisy and corruption of politicians, against all Political Parties and Unions, and against the inability of citizens to have a say in decisions affecting their lives. These motives are stronger today than in the past.
Since 1960 at least 40% of the electorate in the USA never bothered to vote in any election to Congress and at least 30% did'nt vote for Presidents.
People abstain because they find elections ineffective in bringing about real change.
Today, as in 1968, Political Parties and leaders inspire boredom and disgust.
Most voters in the West today vote "against", not "for".
The 1968 strike was unexpected and faced problems never faced before, it lacked means to unify decisions taken all over the country into a single decision .
This enabled the French government in 1968 to reassert its authority.
Today electronic communication provide the means to solve this problem in a new manner.

3. Magnetic Card DirectDemocracy ( M.C.D.D.)

Personal computers, Computer networks, magnetic-card technology, faxes, cellular telephones, and communication satellites, did not exist in 1968.
Today their use is widespread. Millions today use magnetic cards daily to handle their finances.
Autoank Computers add decisions taken by millions of magnetic cards and display the totals within seconds.
By equipping every telephone with a magnetic card-reading device magnetic card technology handling our money can easily be adapted to handle our politics.
It can add, within seconds, decisions made by millions of citizens, and display totals immediately and continously on TV.
Direct voting on every political issue, and proposing decisions to vote on, by each and every citizen, never possible in the past, is possible today.
The technical reasons for having representatives are no longer valid.
The old battle cry of the citizens against the absolute authority of the King: " No taxation without representation" must be changed today into a new battle cry against all forms of representative authority :
" NO DECISION OBEYED WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT ".
It is technically possible today for every citizen to propose and vote by means of a magnetic card on any issue at any time and to see vote totals on TV within seconds.
DirectDemocracy is on the cards, technically, and historically.
It will replace the complicated and expensive system of Representative Democracy.
It is far more democratic than Rule by Representatives.
It is the ultimate democracy. It is too democratic for many democrats.
It will save a lot of money by abolishing all jobs of political representatives, deputies, officials, etc.
NO ONE WILL BE PAID FOR MAKING POLITICAL DECISIONS.
This will save millions spent on running Houses of Representatives, Governements, Presidents.
Moreover, it will abolish corruption and favouritism.
No one will have extra authority worth buying. Buying and selling votes will be a criminal offence.
Political Parties will have to change from vote collectors into spreaders of ideas.
Auto-narchy means 'self rule', direct rule by all citizens.
Auto-narchy is not Socialism, Socialism is rule by the Socialist Party, and State ownership of the economy.
Auto-narchy is direct rule by all citizens with employees ruling their places of work.
Auto-narchy is not A-narchy. A-narchy means 'without rulers' or State, Auto-narchy is a State run directly by all its citizens.
Auto-narchy combines aspirations of original Socialism and Anarchism for a society based on freedom, justice and equality, updating them for the 21st Century.

Today most people earn their living by selling time, skill, or ability, to a private or corporate employer. Early Socialism considered industrial workers as the bearer of positive changes in society and took up their struggle.
An egalitarian alternative to Capitalism today can no longer base itself on industrial workers alone. It must include clerical workers, teachers, medical staff, agricultural workers, and housewives, who do not figure as workers at all but constitute half the population and are never paid for their work.
Today only those who raise demands for decision-making authority of all citizens, on every issue of the State and Work, challenge Capitalism.
Modern technology and social reality make possible an alternative to Socialism as well as Capitalism, more democratic and egalitarian than both.
Those seeking such an alternative must change their aim from the rule of one class (industrial workers) over the rest of society, to DirectDemocracy of all citizens not ruled by any class.
Socialism aimed to replace rule of owners of the means of production by rule of industrial workers. This suited a social reality that existed until the 1950s. A new technological and social reality exists today and requires a change in the aims of those seeking egalitarian alternatives to Capitalism.
Socialists and Anarchists have not adapted to the new reality, they have not come up with a new idea for 150 years. They have failed to update their proposals for alternatives to capitalism and will be irrelevant to most people in the 21st Century.
Auto-narchy is a new alternative to Capitalism. It applies equality to decision-making in the State\ Work\Education\family. Auto-narchy is rule not by a class but directly by all citizens, where every citizen has equal authority to propose, and vote on, every political decision, and no citizen represents others. Voters can appoint people to carry out decisions but those appointed must have no authority to make policy decisions and be recallable any time. Appointees' authority must be like that of Ambassadors, who carry out foreign policy but do not decide foeign policy.
Socialists still insisting on the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" must say so publicly and include their insistence on class dictatorship in their political programmes.
The technological and social reality of 1848, when the struggle for the rule of the industrial working class was progressive, is like the Stone Age compared to the social reality of today. The tremendous changes in society and technology must be met by new alternatives to both private and state ownership of the economy.
Anyone striving to advance political freedom beyond Representative Democracy (which grants political authority to a handful of representatives) must accept the authority of every citizen to make political decisions, and implement the means to do so.
DirectDemocracy makes Representative Democracy obsolete.
DirectDemocracy is Peoples' Power without brokers for political power.
Direct rule of all citizens will replace governance by representatives.
There is no shred of doubt that despite all expected opposition Auto-narchy will replace antiquated Representative Democracy.
This change will abolish the mystification of politics and the political alienation of the vast majority of the population.
Most people today consider 'Politics' a dirty business which must neverthless go on.
'Politics' is simply the making of decisions for an entire society. There is nothing dirty about it.
The dirt which clings to politics stems from behaviour of representatives.
Representation breeds corruption due to its unequal distribution of political authority.
Representatives have political authority while those they represent have not.
Representation - not politics - is the source of corruption and gives politics a bad name.
The system of representatives is at fault, not the substance of politics.

People tolerate representatives, knowing they are corrupt, because they see no other way for running society. People have not yet realized that magnetic-card technology makes it possible to do away with representatives. Why be re-presented when you can be present ? We no longer need to sit in a hall and raise our hands to be counted. We can pass our magnetic card through a slit and vote by pressing a key.
Today presence can be electronic, not physical.
Millions can participate in a debate and vote without sitting in one hall.
The technical reasons for decision-making through representatives are no longer valid. This does not mean that the system of representatives will disappear of its own.
Vicious resistance to Auto-narchy is inevitable. It will come from those who will lose authority, status, and income, when Auto-narchy is implemented.
The main argument against Auto-narchy is that of political expertise.
Opponents of Auto-narchy argue that political decisions require special skills which most people lack. Any research into the special skills of political leaders reveals that it consists of two skills :
Hypocrisy and Conspiracy.
Hypocrisy is essential for dealing with voters, Conspiracy - for dealing with rivals. This is not a denounciation. Anyone involved in traditional politics knows this to be a fact of (traditional) political life.
No representative can succeed without expertise in Hypocrisy and Conspiracy.
Those who rise to the top are best in these two skills.
This is true whenever decisions are taken by representatives on behalf of others.

No other skill is required for becoming a political representative of others.
The Minister of Health is rarely a Doctor, nor the Minister of Defence a General.
Politics is 'decisions binding an entire society'. Making decisions means choosing one out of a number of options. To choose is to answer the question : " what is preferable ? "
Expertise does not determine preference.It never did.
It answers the question " what are the possibilities ?"
Experts can predict outcomes of choices, but choosing between outcomes is different from predicting outcomes, it is a matter of preference.
There is no expert for preferences.
Preferences are determined by priority principles, not by expertise.
No skill is required for making political choices and any person is as capable as any other for choosing one out of the available options.
What special skill, experience, or talent, do John Major, Kohl, Chirac, Yeltsin, or Clinton have, personally, or in common, that qualify them to make political decisions on behalf of millions of people ?

Auto-narchy demystifies politics and solves many political problems. It cannot solve all political problems.
No political system can ever solve all political problems. Society and the individuals it produces change and so do political problems. There is no guarantee that decisions taken by DirectDemocracy will always produce positive outcomes (however one defines "positive" and "negative").
No political system can produce, necessarily, only positive decisions.
DirectDemocracy can produce disasterous decisions just like Representative Democracy but in Representative Democracy disasterous decision bring about - at best - a change of representatives, whereas in DirectDemocracy they can lead to a reconsideration, and change, of the assumptions and priority principle that led to the disasterous decision.
DirectDemocracy implies direct responsibility for the outcome of decisions. Those who voted for a decision are responsible for the results of that decision.
Indirect - representative - democracy, implies indirect responsibility. Those who voted for a representative are not responsible for every decision by their representative. Representation absolvs voters from responsibility for decisions taken by representatives. Voters can shift responsibility onto reprsentatives.
In case of an undesirable outcome of a decision by representatives voters may change representatives but they rarely change the considerations that led them to elect these representatives. In Auto-narchy decision-makers must reconsider the reasons that led them to vote for decisions producing undesirable outcomes.
When decision-making is direct responsibility is direct. By re-considering their priorities for decisions that produced undesirable outcome people can modify them.
Those who do not understand that their own decisions led to undesired outcomes will make the same decisions again and again. Those who do understand can break out of this vicious circle.
Understanding makes possible liberation from repetitive undesired outcomes.
In DirectDemocracy the ruled are the rulers. This makes them directly responsible for their society and restores their sense of being active shapers of society and community. This sense has been destroyed by the self-centredness advocated by Capitalism and by the lack of responsibility for political decisions resulting from decision-making by representatives.
When citizens will make all political decisions themselves they will not be alienated by politics and will change from political pawns into conscious shapers of their society.

4. State and Ethnicity.

A State consists of the laws and everything required for making laws, enforcing laws and defending them against internal and external opponents.
Briefly : The Laws are the core of the State.
Ethnicity is membership in a cultural group.
There are States whose laws grant rights according to ethnic belonging.
If there are more than one ethnic group in such a state but only the majority group is granted group-rights, ethnic strife is bound to occur.
A common solution to ethnic/racial/tribal/religious strife, is a state with a majority of one group and laws granting rights to that group while denying them to others.
A different solution is a State whose laws grant equal group-rights to all ethnic/tribal/racial/religious groups irrespective of their size. This is a Pluralistic State.
Ethnic/Tribal/Racial/Religious States do not put an end to strife, they transfer it from the social domain to the political domain, from strife within the State to strife between States.
Only laws granting each minority the same group-rights granted to the majority can abolish the causes for strife. The laws must enable each minority to cultivate its cultural heritage and its language, and protect its members from persecution and discrimination. The State must enforce those laws.
The 'equal group-rights to all minorities' law must be protected from change by the majority. This contradicts the democratic principle of majority-rule but is necessary for avoiding strife. This can be done by declaring this law as a Basic Law which can be changed only by a very large majority. Laws granting equal group-rights to all minorities irrespective of size will be defended by all minorities.
By defending this law they defend themselves. Every majority can one day become a minority. A law granting all cultural groups the same group rights irrespective of their size will put an end to cultural strife.
South Africa today as ruled by the African National Cogress shows that such a system is possible even after many years of racist strife.
The ANC regime functions well despite all difficulties and residues of a long and cruel history of racial discrimination and oppression. Where there is pluralism there is a way. Where there is no pluralism there is strife. Not because there is no way, but because pluralism was rejected.
Those who reject pluralism are responsible for the consequent strife.
If people want a pluralistic state they can set it up despite all difficulties.
Auto-narchy's solution to ethnic/tribal/racial/religious strife is a Pluralistic State.

5. Priority principles

Every law and every political system is a result of decisions based on a priority principle.
Priority principles create preference, motivation, and justification.
There are four main priority principles: Ego-, Ethno-, Theo-, and Anthropo - centred.
In other words, Self interest, National interest, God's interest, or Humanity's interest - however one interprets them - as priorities determining preferences.
Priority principles determine preferences, and preferences are - necessarily - mutually exclusive.
You can prefer only one out of two pssibilites, never both.
People acquire their particular priority principle from parents, teachers, tradition, or some psychological need.
The devoutly religious put loyalty to God before loyalty to Self, Nation, or Humanity.
Some of them aspire to a State whose laws are the laws of their religion and whose rulers are their religious leaders. Iran is an example. Its leaders reject rule by majority (Demos-cratia) because they believe that religious leaders know better than the majority what is good for the majority. This is Theo-centrism. It prefers Theocracy to Democracy.
Capitalism is founded on the priority principle of personal self-interest. Its moto: "my interests above all else". Many believe this is 'Natural' since animals in nature behave in this manner. Actually there are various behaviour patterns in nature, but even if all animals behaved selfishly it proves nothing about human society. Society exists because it restrains biological drives.
Human society is not a product of Nature but of restraints imposed upon nature, hence conclusions drawn from biology are mostly inapplicable to sociology.
Biological justification of politics is a common fallacy of racists\sexists.
Laws are not imposed on society by Nature\God\History\Reason. They are made by living people, who interpret Nature\God\History\Reason in various ways. Some think God is omnipotent, others think God is a superstition. Some think Nature, History, or Reason, are omnipotent others think they are materials which can be shaped in various ways.
Auto-narchy is Anthropocentric, it rejects personal, national, and religious, selfcentredness.
The priority principle of Auto-narchy is the wellbeing of all people.
However, Needs of the poorest must be attended before needs of the less poor and needs of the sickest before needs of the less sick.
Excepting these two needs of the many must be attended before needs of the few.
Protecting species from extinction and Nature from destruction and pollution is compulsory.
This is Humanism. It treats all people as equals despite all differences between them.

Auto-narchy differs from Capitalism by its priorities.
The priority principle of Capitalism is Egocentrism, whereas the priority principle of Auto-narchy is Anthropocentrism. Their different positions on ownership and authority stem from their different priority principles. Attempts to merge anthropocentrism with ego\ethno\theo -centrism were tried, and failed.
Such attempts produce a facade of one priority veiling another, dominant, one.
Priority principles determine preferences. As it is impossible to make a choice without a preference every person must have a priority principle.
As priorities are mutually exclusive every person has at any given moment, one, and only one, priority principle, (which can of course be changed).
Different priority principles produce different political systems.
When the majority prefers personal self interest the political outcome is Capitalism.
When the majority prefers national self interest the political outcome is Nationalism.
A majority upholding religious self interest gives rise to Theocracy.
When the majority rejects all forms of selfishness and upholds Humanism and political equality the political outcome is Auto-narchy.
Socialists assumed that private ownership of industry, commerce, and agriculture must produce economic crises, poverty and misery, and must drive people to establish State ownership of the entire economy.
Economic misery was supposed to drive most people to establish Socialism.
These assumptions were proved wrong after W.W.2 . Government intervention in the economy can overcome economic crises and prolong Capitalism indefinitely.
Morevoer, facts (including economic misery) do not contain meanings of their own.
People give meanings to facts and do so according to their priority principles.
Human beings are not only tool-makers, they are also meaning-makers.
Facts have no meaning of their own. Their meanings depend on those who gave them.
An egoist, a nationalist, and a humanist will give different meanings to the same fact, each contradicting the other two. Meanings depend on priority principles, not on facts.
State ownership of the economy in a society where most people are self-centered will be a variant of Capitalism. State ownership of the economy in a society where the majority is theocentric will be a Theocracy.
Political systems are shaped by priority principles not by ownership relations.
The same means of production can give rise to different political systems each shaped by a different priority principle. Iraq and Iran are an example. One is guided by Ethnocentrism, the other by Theocentrism.
Authority too is shaped by priority principles. It is often imposed by force.
In a modern industrial society authority is based on consent rather than coercion. Consent can be due to a belief that there exists no alternative. Today social, technical, and political conditions make Auto-narchy a feasable alternative to Capitalism but most people are unaware of this alternative. If those desiring Auto-narchy promote it vigorously they could be in for a surprise.
On May 1st 1968 nobody in France imagined that by the end of the month the whole country will be on strike...






Return to top

email aki_orr@netvision.net.il
Home Page Cyber Library E-mail