Abstract
This paper identifies authority as the major mistake underlying the social sciences. Authorities prevent equal human rights, which should be the core of democracy and the foundation for a bright future for humankind. The problem is that human rights have never been equal. Authorities have long shaped humankind by imposing their will on society. We need wisdom and bravery to strengthen human rights and build a prosperous society. Such rights must give people equal legislative, judicial, and executive powers in society. This will be achieved by giving people equal rights to evaluate others’ actions. Each positive evaluation should bring a small reward to the assessed person, and each negative assessment should result in a minor penalty. Such a policy will encourage everyone to respect others as equal human beings, please them, and avoid hurting them. According to this paper, power in people’s hands can create a good society. The equal power of evaluation among people presents a new form of democracy, and the freedom of evaluation presents a new form of anarchy. Therefore, such a policy should be called democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy ought to serve as an ideal example of a critical, non-ideal theory capable of building a just society and a bright future for humankind. It is supposed to create good anarchy.
Keywords
Authority, Equal human rights, Democracy, Anarchy, Democratic anarchy
***
Introduction
A biologist and ecologist, Allan Savory, expressed a great concern about today’s science by saying: “People talk glibly about science. What is science? People are coming out of the university with a master’s degree or PhD; you take them into the field, and they literally don’t believe anything unless it’s a peer-reviewed paper. That is the only thing they accept. And you say to them, “Let’s observe, let’s think, let’s discuss.” They don’t do it. Only if it is in a peer-reviewed paper or not; that’s their view of science. I think it is pathetic! Gone into university as young, bright people, and they come out of it brain-dead! Not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers, etc. No, that is academia. And if the paper is peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the same; they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when new knowledge emerges - new scientific insights - they can never ever be peer-reviewed, so we are blocking all new advances in science that are big advances. If you look at breakthroughs in science, almost always they do not come from the center of the profession; they come from the fringe. The finest candle makers in the world couldn’t even think of the electrical lights. They do not come from within; they often come from outside the bricks. We are going to kill ourselves because of stupidity.” (Savory, 2021)
Scientists’ work has always had to align with the authorities’ interests. In this article, the term “authority” refers to people who have power over others. It does not refer to people knowledgeable enough to advise or teach at request. In the Ancient and Middle Ages, state authorities often eliminated people who had proposed changes they disapproved of. For example, Socrates, Thomas More, and Giordano Bruno died defending the truths they believed in.
Contemporary democracy has brought changes to humankind, but authorities can still block knowledge that may undermine their power. The prime authorities in the Western world are the capitalist elite. They have financial power that exerts enormous influence or even full control over politicians, scientists, and the media. Money helps them rule the Western world. Western politicians who do not serve the elite's interests would never receive their financial support and would hardly be elected. Scientists in the West who do not get along with the elite would not receive money for their scientific research. People from the West who need to say something publicly must align with the elite’s interests, or they might never be mentioned in the media. In practice, Western politicians, managers, teachers, parents, practically everyone must obey the elite to prosper in their lives, and they know it. That is how the elite have created a social belief that there is no option to change social policy, so people do not even try.
No one should doubt that the elite rule the Western world after understanding how Western media have unilaterally lied about the war in Ukraine, presenting it as Russian aggression. Western people do not know that numerous pieces of evidence prove that the US replaced the government in Ukraine in 2014 to wage a proxy war against Russian people by using Ukrainians (Stone, 2016).
At the beginning of the war, a major effort was made to end it through negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian representatives in Istanbul, Turkey. When an agreement was reached, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson came to the Verkhovna Rada in Kyiv and urged parliamentarians to reject the peace deal with Russia, and they did (Johnson, 2022).
Democratic leaders normally oppose war, but most European leaders support Ukraine in the war without ever mentioning peace. Their political opposition is just a democratic facade that criticizes governments to gain power, but once in power, it never questions the elite’s policies. European people concerned about the war in Ukraine have replaced numerous warmonger leaders, but the new ones continue supporting the war. This would not be possible without a strong organization in the West that controls leaders, science, media, and the people.
***
Throughout history, authorities have imposed substantial amounts of alienating knowledge on people to keep their social privileges, and society has accepted it. Nothing is worse than accepting false knowledge, as it controls people’s lives and devastates human capabilities. However, people do not recognize it. Once people acquire a wrong social understanding, it becomes an obstacle to solving social problems and developing society.
To secure more power over society, the Western elite need control over the social sciences to promote ideas that cannot improve society. For example, they promoted the philosophy of Karl Marx and his successors as scientific, yet their work has been ineffective at solving societal problems. The main problem with Marx’s theory is that he called on human consciousness to build human equality; this paper presents that human equality can only certainly build human consciousness. Besides, Marx called for revolutionary change in political power, which, according to democratic principles, is unacceptable. In fact, his revolutionary teachings should be banned. However, Marxists have practically free access to scientific journals worldwide. They publish practically whatever they want. The elite have supported Marxism knowing it cannot improve society and replace capitalism, which has been proven by history. If Karl Marx could improve society, the elite would most likely have prevented his ideas from reaching the public, and hardly anyone would have known he even existed. Marxists still believe that they need to find the right method to make Marxism work well. While doing so, they prevent new socialist ideas from emerging, unknowingly supporting their ideological enemies - the capitalist elite.
One may confidently conclude that the Western elite has censored the work of people or scientists offering social improvement over the last few centuries, because such improvement must have taken power from the elite. Such people lacked access to science, the media, and the public. Furthermore, the elite has imposed rules on the social sciences that prevent society from developing. One of the most important rules required that new scientific work relate to previously accepted scientific knowledge. It would be reasonable if the accepted way of thinking were correct. But it is not, so such rules preserve false or underdeveloped social doctrines and prevent the emergence of new scientific ideas necessary for social improvement. New ideas lack prior scientific recognition, and journals cannot accept them. The author confirms this from his own experience.
Allan Savory was correct in claiming that blocking the development of science is a consequence of human stupidity. But he is mistaken in thinking this blocking is unintentional, because the capitalist elite have deliberately enforced it for centuries. They maintain their privileged power by preventing social development. The lack of social improvement should be enough to confirm it. We still have crime, wars, and all kinds of social destruction. Social sciences should find a way to diminish social problems, if not eliminate them, but they cannot.
The same situation applies to all scientific journals worldwide. Does that mean the Western elite has the power to impose its will on journals worldwide? Well, they don’t have that power, but they certainly try hard to make it happen and come pretty close. First, they try to impress the world by promoting a successful Western economy, policies, science, and culture. As a result, the rest of the world, impressed by Western prosperity, too often accepts its policies and science uncritically. If they don’t, the Western world pressures them through political and economic power. If that isn’t successful enough, it promotes aggressive policies against countries that don’t listen. This is the main cause of wars today. Nobody really talks about it because those who are aware of it are either corrupted by the elite’s power, censored by it, or afraid of it.
As a result, social scientists face a catch-22: the more they focus on their research, the less they can contribute to improving society. In addition, social scientists are educational authorities who impose accepted, alienated knowledge on people. Authorities have created schools primarily to protect their interests, not to improve society. The developed world practices 12-year-long school indoctrination by authorities, which is mandatory and sufficient to block children’s minds, making positive social change difficult or impossible.
The primary subject in all schools is teaching obedience to authorities. Students cannot challenge the school curriculum, so when they learn false or insufficiently accurate knowledge, as authorities very often teach, the damage is done irreversibly. In this way, we alienate children from their nature and prepare them to pass on that knowledge to the next generation. The problem is that people do not see it this way. Even forcing students full of energy and joy in life to sit in the classroom for half a day harms their nature. One cannot expect a good result from it. School creates lifelong issues in society. We want the best for our children, but instead we inadvertently contribute to their powerlessness, fostering social problems without realizing it. This does not mean school should be closed, because schools are necessary for social improvement. However, schools need to teach what interests students, and those interests are inseparable from real life unless disrupted by authoritarian obstacles. Schools should attract students to attend them voluntarily. Such an approach is a desirable starting point for improving society.
Democracy Today
Since Ancient times, society has recognized the importance of people’s participation in decision-making on matters of common interest. This awareness led to the development of democratic principles. An ideal form of democracy should be carried out through a mutual agreement among all community members on social rules until a consensus is established. Unfortunately, reaching consensus is difficult because individual interests differ. People can hardly agree on something and can never agree on everything. Besides, every society faces a vast number of decisions that even the most interested, knowledgeable, and time-rich cannot participate in. So, an ideal form of democracy based on mutual agreement at the social level is impossible to achieve.
The first model of democracy was invented by a political reformer, Cleisthenes of Athens, who lived 2,500 years ago. He invented a voting system that replaced rule by noble authorities with rule by the people. This made Cleisthenes of Athens the father of democracy. His democratic principles were guided by the majority’s interests, replacing ancient dictatorial rule. Still, democracy has not changed much to this day because voting processes have not improved much, and people still do not know how to do so. The main reason is that authorities who have always existed in society prevent democratic development to maintain power. As a result, social sciences have not been able to eliminate today’s basic social problems. They have improved much less than other sciences.
In capitalism, people have accepted representative democracy, a variant that emerged from ancient democracy. In representative democracy, freely organized individuals form political parties, shape the social policy agenda that best suits them, and present it to the public. In elections, voters choose parties that best reflect their interests. The party that gets the most votes takes power through the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government for a set period. Such an election of power is well known today as a liberal democracy.
A government that fails to meet people’s needs loses public support and, consequently, loses power in the next election, giving a better government the chance to further improve social life. Liberal democracy ensures a peaceful transfer of authority, a significant advantage compared with the bloody replacement of leaders that often ends in social destruction.
However, since ancient times, liberal democracy has had numerous shortcomings that social science has not been able to overcome. The basic problem is the principle of majority rule, which shows little concern for minorities’ needs, leaving them unsatisfied. It creates problems for society. In a fully developed democracy, every individual's needs must be considered before making a decision. All participation in decision-making is necessary to form a policy that best satisfies everyone’s interests.
Another major problem with liberal democracy is that social authorities wield power over people and need to maintain it. In the Western world, the wealthy elite maintain their power by corrupting political decision-making through campaign financing. Money helps them impose their interests on political parties. Politicians come and go, which makes them highly inclined to corruption. In an immoral society, corruption can take the form of recognition, making it impossible to oppose it. As a result, such parties promise benefits to win elections, but then pursue policies that benefit the elite. Voters are cheated too often in the Western world, and as a result, people do not know what is really happening on the political scene. Then how can they possibly make correct democratic decisions? The elite have created a political system that gives them control over society.
The wealthy elite increase their power worldwide by staging political charades. One of the most obvious examples was the Western aggression against Iraq. It was based on the accusation that Iraq possessed WMD, which allegedly threatened the security of the Western world. The claim was strong enough to wage war against Iraq. However, the accusation proved false. Recently, the West’s aggression against Iran was “justified” by Iran’s threat to build and use nuclear weapons against them, once again claimed without any proof. These wars were crimes committed by the Western world and huge injustices for which today’s democracy has no answer. When an ordinary criminal robs a bank and kills somebody, they would most likely face the full extent of the law. When the elite rob a country of its oil reserves or minerals, killing thousands or millions of people, it is called a state policy, and no punishment is given. When people allow such injustice, creating a good society becomes impossible.
In the US and the EU, most people are chronically dissatisfied with their leaders, yet their democracies cannot deliver better. When Western people decide to replace immoral leaders at elections, they get even worse ones. Western leaders are selected, groomed, and finally supported by the media to serve the interests of the elite, so their replacement does not change the policy.
If some politician tries to oppose the interests of the rich, they encounter obstacles everywhere. In the developed world, the media will accuse a disobedient politician of not doing their job well or of committing some sin, which will cost them their political ranking. Politicians who oppose the elite will need to give up or end their careers. In the end, political parties pursue policies that favour the elite.
The elite try to bring all influential factors within a society under their control, making every effort to avoid leaving anything to chance. They secure their policy through government, media, education, culture, entertainment, sports, and every other influential means.
The “society that does not know” readily accepts alienated rules imposed by the wealthy. Such rules shape people’s opinions and actions. Under their influence, people accept what their society deems correct, good, funny, or beautiful. They become what the elite expects of them, rather than what they are supposed to be by their nature. An individual undergoes a thorough brainwashing process throughout their lifetime, and ultimately is not able to critique the correctness of the system in which they live. Such an individual, as a rule, elects parties that support the programmes of the wealthy owners of capital, and the circle of the democratic farce thus closes. No further proof is needed that Western liberal democracy is not democratic. It is a covert dictatorship of the elite, making people powerless and democracy a charade.
Socialism has also established a representative democracy. In socialism, people are supposed to discuss and decide on issues affecting state policy within their communities. Their delegates represent their needs in the state assemblies. Delegates are obligated to facilitate community decisions and represent their base's interests in the central administrative bodies that govern society across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In this way, a social order is supposed to establish decisions that meet social needs.
Throughout history, people have tried to create a democratic delegate system. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin initially intended to build socialism and communism based on Marx’s idea of equal rights for the people (Lenin, 2017). It is hard to judge how honest his attempt was because every authority needs to exercise power over society. Still, problems have long existed in reconciling the diverse interests of various entities because people could hardly agree on anything. Lenin’s attempt to establish equal human rights ran into such difficulties that he ultimately abandoned the goal and sought to control people. The other socialist leaders followed suit, regaining control of society. It was precisely where everything started going wrong with socialism and communism. Delegates no longer forwarded the people’s needs to the government; instead, they sent the government’s directives to the people. Thus, socialism became nothing but a dictatorship hiding behind formal democracy. Such democracy exists in North Korea, China and Cuba today.
People also invented referendums as a form of democracy in which the majority of voters accept or reject a decision concerning their interests. Referendums are rarely held because organizing them is not easy. It is again very difficult to reach consensus on crucial questions in society, making it hard to organize referendum agendas. Finally, those in power do not like people’s participation in governing society because it takes power from them, so referendums are rarely organized.
However, a more serious problem affects all democracies we know. Authorities set the voting agenda almost exclusively, while people have little or no influence over it, meaning they vote on issues shaped by authorities’ interests rather than those concerning their lives. This is a final deficiency of democracies, making them weak or practically non-existent. Democracies today actually fail to expose the bad intentions of authorities.
Democracy is supposed to improve social life. It must have the potential to make a good society. But we cannot do it because the influence of authorities prevents democracy from functioning. As a result, the democracy we have today does not represent the people’s interests. Social scientists recognize this, yet authorities have created enormous social alienation, leading them to doubt whether social progress is possible. Consequently, one cannot find scientific papers that effectively elaborate on the development of democracy.
The practice has shown that the representative form of democracy is insufficiently just. It is rather a fraud than a demonstration of the power of the people, by the people, for the people. People can hardly achieve their rights through democracy anywhere in the world. Does this mean that the people’s will cannot be carried out? Can democracy not be developed? Establishing an expanded form of democracy requires discovering a new pathway to implement the people’s will effectively. To do so, we need to think outside the box.
Democratic Anarchy Is the Future of Democracy
The democracy we know today is still based on the privileges of authorities, which create societal issues. Privileges are a main source of social evil and lead to social problems. Even slight privileges can create conflicts in society. This paper argues that we can eliminate social problems by accepting society's natural laws. These laws should replace authorities with equal human rights, which is the condition sine qua non for social improvement.
Equal human rights have never existed, so no wonder that the history of humankind has never been good enough. This paper will argue that equal human rights can solve social issues through the development of democracy. A well-developed democracy should find optimal social solutions for all, making the world a better place to live.
The future of democracy should not be primarily about voting for people, because history shows it does not give voters enough power to improve the world. The future of democracy must empower people to evaluate others' actions. Individuals should have small, independent legislative, judicial, and executive powers to assess others. A little power in people's hands should incentivize everyone to create the greatest advantages for others and avoid creating disadvantages. This kind of democracy is supposed to transform the foundation of social policy, solve social problems and foster a prosperous society. It is supposed to change the world and make it a much better place to live.
Let people allow everyone who, within the scope of their activity, can affect others in any way to do so freely of their own will. People do not have many choices here because they cannot interfere with the freedom of activity of presidents, doctors, mechanics, or any other person, nor do they have the ability, the time, the right, or even the desire to do so. However, through their actions, all these people may create advantages and disadvantages for others.
People can sense whether the activities of a president, doctor, mechanic, or anyone else bring advantages or disadvantages. According to this theory, people should have the right to reward those who create advantages for them and to punish those who create disadvantages. Such a right would require everyone to bring the greatest values and the least problems to others. Such an orientation of society would reflect the people’s will in the best possible way and, therefore, should develop democracy in the best possible way.
If we accept that equal rights for people are the only proper orientation of society, we must let each person have the same power of evaluation. They may have the right to evaluate negatively, let’s say, three individuals who have hurt them the most in any given month and to assess positively three individuals who have created the most significant benefits in a month. For example, if a prime minister, neighbour, and boss harm a person the most in one month, they will evaluate these individuals negatively. On the other hand, if a friend, teacher, and singer produce the most significant benefits to a person, they will get a positive assessment. People may also use all evaluations for positive or negative assessments, or in any combination. This is the essence, and the rest is a technical matter which will be performed through an application on the Internet.
The sum of positive and negative evaluations individuals receive from others could be publicly presented on the Internet. Counting these evaluations would show everyone how valued they are in society. These evaluations may become at least as important to people as page visits, likes, and followers are today. Nobody would want to be on the negative side of assessment, but everyone would want to be on the positive side as much as possible. They will achieve this goal by delivering the greatest benefits to the community and mitigating or eliminating all disadvantages.
In this way, everyone would become an equal authority with limited direct power in society. Given that all people will have equal rights and the power to award and punish others, independent of any written rules, such a democracy will, in fact, be anarchy. That is why this evaluation system is called democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy is supposed to create a flourishing society.
People would gain direct power in society for the first time in human history. This power would eliminate uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power rooted in privileged social status. People need to understand that individuals’ privileged positions should be considered the basis of societal problems. The lack of equal human rights is why society has never been good. Democratic anarchy would require each member of society to respect others. People will become valuable to all people. People will be treated equally for the first time, resulting in harmonious, constructive social relations.
People today rarely have a chance to intervene in issues that bother them, so they remain powerless in society. In democratic anarchy, people will have the power to express their approval or disapproval of any individual action that affects their interests. They will actually judge people who annoy them and express gratitude to those who beautify their lives. People can decide their voting interests independently, free from influence or limits imposed by authorities, allowing democracy to flourish. In addition, democratic anarchy will significantly enrich the poor democratic principle of majority rule, effectively reflecting and serving every individual's interests. The votes of all people will shape social policy whenever they cast their ballots. Such a democracy will create unwritten rules that best reflect social needs. Technically, it will be the most developed form of democracy, bringing the greatest benefits to society.
***
Evaluation systems already exist in societies that seek public opinion on the success of specific actions. However, such an assessment has no direct power. People will need courage and wisdom to adopt such a measure to realize significant benefits.
Something similar to democratic anarchy was already implemented on YouTube, where people could vote for uploaded songs or videos with a “like” or “dislike.” The results of these votes pretty accurately reflect public opinion on the upload. However, such voting does not necessarily present an objective basis for evaluation because subjective people can evaluate others at will. Democratic anarchy will serve society much better than YouTube because people will have equal, limited evaluation rights, so they will never spend their evaluations irrationally. They would likely evaluate others as best they could because they would feel honoured to wield direct power in society. Democratic anarchy will present the impact of votes more objectively than YouTube can.
Everyone will judge other people freely. In this regard, many complain that people may maliciously evaluate others out of spite or envy. Such a risk exists, but an individual assessment cannot significantly harm anyone. The damage an individual can cause is insignificant compared to that of state authorities because authorities can pull entire countries backward. In the proposed system, such authorities would receive numerous negative evaluations from the public, which, through minor regulation, could prevent them from committing the evil acts that dictators have committed throughout history. Is it acceptable to let individuals judge others incorrectly if such “trials” prevent significant societal destruction?
It can be assumed with high certainty that equal power among people would, by its nature, make malice and envy hardly exist. However, if something like that still happens, each person could correct a wrongful assessment they made of others by instigating a correct evaluation, even many years later, when they experience enlightenment under the influence of equal human rights. Their conscience will likely prompt them to do it.
Furthermore, the system would enable everyone to achieve satisfaction by negatively evaluating individuals who cause trouble for them or society. Such pleasure is more favourable, constructive, and efficient than any form of revenge that the alienated society practices. Satisfaction also brings the power of reward through positive evaluation, where individuals support those who create conveniences. Once democratic anarchy is implemented, people will come to like it very much.
For those still skeptical about democratic anarchy, it could be introduced by sharing evaluations only with the individuals being evaluated, not with anyone else. This would be like people listening to anonymous gossip about themselves, and everyone would be interested in hearing it. As a result, most people will try to improve their social behaviour. However, the confidential evaluation results may not stop the worst people from continuing their bad behaviour. Then, society may decide to discourage the wrongdoers by fully implementing democratic anarchy through democratic means. And even then, if people receive more favourable than unfavourable evaluations, they may keep the result a secret from others. However, if the total assessment is negative, it will be visible to everyone, forcing individuals with a negative evaluation to improve their behaviour.
Many people, including university professors, have criticized democratic anarchy, arguing that it is impossible for all to judge others objectively. It can be argued that objectivity is desirable but not essential. Besides, voters do not need to be intelligent or educated to have the right to vote. People judge others based on how they feel, and everyone is obliged to consider the consequences of their actions on others. This is what is needed to create a good society. By adopting democratic anarchy, people would appreciate other people, bringing considerable benefits to the community.
Furthermore, a system that supports people’s equal rights will develop objectivity in the community. People who receive negative evaluations will have to learn what is wrong with them, which will teach them objectivity. Objectivity will remove conflicts in society. In the future, people will likely only give and receive good evaluations, and then they will know they live in a good society. After these explanations, no one with good intentions for humankind's bright future should refuse democratic anarchy. However, because authorities have wielded ideological influence throughout history, people hesitate to discuss democratic anarchy.
***
It can be assumed that the system of mutual assessment will group people by shared interests. Members of society with specific interests will tend to isolate themselves to achieve greater convenience in mutual contact and avoid creating trouble for members with opposing interests. In this way, the system will enable the exercise of diverse interests in society and the development of various orientations.
Once society accepts democratic anarchy, it will not give much power to individuals, but their evaluations, joined together, will have enormous power. A person receiving many negative assessments would likely try harder to avoid actions that inconvenience others. Moreover, people who receive inadequate evaluations will never know who evaluated them negatively, so they will try to improve their behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies would not exist at school, employers would not abuse their employees at work, neighbours would not produce obnoxious noise at night, salespeople would not cheat their customers, politicians would not lie to people, etc. They will all strive to please others in the best possible way. This would take privileged powers from everyone, eliminating social evils and fostering a good society.
When people become accustomed to mutual evaluation, they may democratically decide to increase the weight of each assessment by assigning, for example, a value of one dollar to each. Each positive evaluation a person receives should add one dollar, and each negative assessment should take one dollar away. These evaluations would not significantly impact ordinary people. If two people do not like each other, they may negatively evaluate each other for years, which would not be a significant issue. Gaining or losing one dollar per month in the developed world has an insignificant impact.
Evaluations would especially influence the authorities responsible for making societal decisions. The higher a leader’s position in society, the greater their responsibility to the people is. For example, the US President might receive 100,000,000 negative evaluations from the American people for implementing ineffective policies, lying, and engaging in aggressive behaviour against other countries. That would cost the president $100 million in just one month. On the other hand, the president’s supporters might not evaluate such presidents positively because they may prioritize other issues and allocate their positive evaluations elsewhere. Presidents would no longer dare implement bad policies. And if it happens, they will quickly leave their positions. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will no longer be authorities but sincere servants of the people. We elect our leaders based on our opinions about them. When our opinions carry equal weight, the world will undergo a significant transformation.
So, what if influential people who own mass media unfairly accuse someone of being evil in society and thus prompt people to give inadequate evaluations to the wrong person? This is easily possible in today’s society. However, a proverb says, “Lies have short legs.” One day, the lies will be revealed, and no one would want to be in the place of these lying individuals, because they would surely face many negative evaluations. They may receive punishments for a long time and would not dare to be immoral again.
The point of democracy is to create rules that enable people to live well. So far, legislation has achieved the best results; however, it has not solved social problems. Democratic anarchy may solve all disputes in society by giving people direct power. In the future, democratic anarchy may offer a more effective solution for individuals and society than laws can provide. When people can enforce justice independently, they will seek justice in courts less often. The courts would start losing their importance, together with the state oppression apparatus, including the police and prisons. Once democratic anarchy is established, it will begin replacing the enormous regulation imposed by authorities. Many state laws may become obsolete in the distant future, relegating them to history. However, judges and prosecutors, who conduct proceedings against individuals and law enforcement agencies that protect society, will still have work to do and therefore must have evaluative immunity.
Furthermore, democratic anarchy cannot be corrupted. On the contrary, it will most likely eliminate immorality in society. Through equal rights to evaluation, people will learn what is and is not objectively ethical. People will obey the ethics they spontaneously establish. No morality is greater than what equal human rights can provide. In fact, this is probably the only moral possibility because ethics can hardly be based on privilege. Privileged individuals can hardly escape promoting their selfish interests, quickly moving them beyond morality. Democratic anarchy alone should be able to create an ethical and fair society.
Democratic anarchy may, for the first time, enforce the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” which can create a good society. In essence, democratic anarchy embeds the principle of a fair market economy that rewards good behaviour. Democratic anarchy will do even better because it includes negative evaluations, meaning everyone should consider the consequences of their actions on others. It should work perfectly. Once democratic anarchy is established, it can lead to rapid and significant social improvement.
Once people have the right to evaluate others and be evaluated by others, they will be less willing to confront others and more willing to please them. No one will dare to be arrogant or aggressive. Only kind people will exist. This is the best possible outcome of democracy. Historically, when people have strived to create the greatest possible conveniences for individuals and society, the community used to prosper and live a prosperous and constructive life, while in systems where individuals found conveniences to the detriment of society, a destructive orientation used to occur, leading to the break-up of the social order. Over time, such a small amount of power in the hands of people will most likely eliminate social evil from the world and create a bright future for humankind.
The technology needed to implement democratic anarchy is already available. Democratic anarchy may be implemented soon, enabling a much better society to be built quickly. Democratic anarchy would likely fulfill the dreams of the dreamers throughout human history.
***
Under pressure from democratic anarchy, governments would follow the people’s needs. State authorities would not dare make the most important decisions for society alone, as they could easily make mistakes that might provoke widespread wrath and numerous negative evaluations. Suppose the state authorities are unsure of the people’s needs. Their responsibility, clearly defined by respecting people’s evaluations, would direct them to foster public participation in strategic decision-making through referendums. In this regard, they would most likely develop a simple, fast, and efficient method for people to make direct decisions, probably online.
People must make strategic societal decisions directly, such as accepting fundamental laws, because their direct participation best guarantees just social policies. In making political decisions, people will have equal voting power.
People can also directly influence society’s macroeconomic policy because it underpins the economy, which in turn affects society as a whole. One needs to enable people to decide how much tax they want to pay on their gross income. The sum of everyone’s expressions about taxation would determine the total funds allocated to collective consumption. People would not pay as much tax as they want. They would determine the total tax amount, which would then be collected proportionally to their salaries. Similarly, each person can decide how to allocate their taxes. Each person would decide how much tax to set aside to develop the public economy, ensure safety, promote education, enhance health, improve infrastructure, and meet other collective consumption needs.
Theoretically, people can decide on collective consumption within consumer groups as they see fit. These shared consumption groups will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated. People will learn, through lived experience, how much money they should collect in taxes and the best way to spend it. Thus, this spending would no longer be alienated from society; it would better serve people’s needs. If the new system fosters stable, good relations among nations, people would no longer allocate money to armies, and armies would cease to exist. In the proposed democracy, waging wars would no longer be possible.
Economic democracy will not give people equal voting power as long as incomes differ. People should have economic voting power in proportion to their contributions to creating social wealth. Higher workers’ contributions to social wealth bring them higher salaries and greater voting power. Greater economic voting power should stimulate productivity, thereby promoting societal prosperity.
Professionals could make all operational decisions in society and be directly responsible to the people for those decisions. Once people have direct power to participate in the decision-making process and judge those who make decisions on their behalf, it would most likely represent the most developed form of democracy. One can hardly define a better political way. People would become so satisfied with such a democracy that they would not allow anyone to seize it from them.
Process That Creates a Good Society
The process is simple: Free people who respect others’ freedom master their own destiny. Equal human rights will enforce it, enabling people to live well. Democratic anarchy, as a political part of equal human rights, which will also include equal economic rights (Šarović, 1992, p.37), will relieve people of the power of authorities. Authorities and their privileges will disappear together with obedient, powerless people. People released from the pressure of authorities will be able to demystify the alienated values imposed on them throughout history and discover natural ways of living. Removing privileges will eliminate the central nest of narcissism, which is the main cause of human destructiveness. (Fromm,1973). Eliminating privileges by establishing equal human rights is crucial for developing a harmonious and prosperous society.
Democratic anarchy can establish a much more efficient model of social responsibility than today’s society provides, or even than this paper presents. It will teach people to rely on their own power to meet their needs. It will guide people in aligning their needs with their ability to satisfy them. This is the primary prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society, as individuals who consistently meet their needs are more likely to be satisfied and less likely to exhibit destructive behaviour. In such a society, people will eliminate human and social destructiveness. Then society will develop a new culture that fosters a productive orientation among people, solves social problems, eliminates the evils of this world, and builds a bright future for humankind.
People have a vibrant inner world where all emotions, including love, hate, misery, and joy, reside. In a society where people understand that they are equal to all others, regardless of their accomplishments, they will no longer feel the need to compare themselves with others. In such a society, exploiting the outer world will barely yield noticeable benefits for people. Therefore, people will begin seeking value within their inner world. When such an orientation is accepted, hate and misery will be eliminated because they do not exist in the inner world of individuals who are relieved of the need to compare themselves with others. In contrast, love and joy will develop significantly because nothing destructive exists in the inner world of individuals who are relieved of the need to compare themselves with others. People who do not compete with others generally prove it.
The most critical point of an individual’s creation is themselves. Exploring the inner world helps people enlighten themselves and find value within themselves. The more people find value in themselves, the more they free themselves from selfish interests and turn toward others. This reduces conflict in society. The more people get to know themselves, the more freedom, peace, joy, and wisdom they can achieve. Developed people achieve what they need on their own; they love the world unconditionally just because it exists. We learn through our lives what is good and what is bad. Equal human rights are the best teacher. They will enlighten people, enabling them to create a prosperous society that surpasses even today's wildest dreams.
Good anarchy is possible
When setting principles for social organization, people cannot negotiate all issues affecting their lives. This is why accepting democratic anarchy is necessary to create general principles of social life. Through democratic anarchy, people will spontaneously set unwritten rules in line with human nature, establishing prosperous social relations and the best social organization. The rules will come naturally, like walking and talking, meaning they do not need to be determined by law, but will apply well throughout humanity, creating a bright future. People can always adapt society's general organization to their specific needs through mutual agreement. This will be anarchy, the simplest way to organize society well.
Democratic anarchy does not fit perfectly into established anarchy principles based on the absence of authorities and leaders, because everyone becomes an equal authority, as necessary to prevent destructive anarchy. Leaders must remain to coordinate social activities, especially in economic production, but they will no longer be authorities; they will be servants of the people.
When people find the greatest values in themselves, then it will not be important for them to compare themselves with other people. If social relationships go well, people will not need to evaluate other people anymore, nor to be evaluated by other people. When people stop evaluating each other, they may finally abandon exercising any power over others, leaving liberty and justice in anarchy entirely to people’s morality, as Proudhon and Bakunin desired.
People will start building affirmative natural living principles practically from birth, and no authority will exist to prevent them. It will be very hard to corrupt such principles. But if it happens somehow, democratic anarchy will still be around even though nobody uses it anymore. If relationships among people deteriorate, they may turn back to evaluating others, establishing a harmonious society and the path to a bright future for humankind again.
***
Democratic anarchy is a necessary step toward social progress, but it faces a major acceptance problem. The simplest discoveries are often the hardest to accept because people have no model to rely on. People living under authoritarian pressure can hardly see the results this paper promotes. Also, most people dislike changes that challenge traditional ways of thinking. In addition, democratic anarchy eliminates social privileges. Most people will find it easier to accept injustice than to lose their privileges. All these obstacles add to the elite’s hard-to-break power of censorship. It makes promoting the idea of democratic anarchy very difficult. We need wisdom to understand that democracy should mean real power in the hands of the people, and we need bravery to accept that power to build a prosperous society.
The conclusion
History shows that authoritarian social systems produce social problems, whereas systems that grant people more rights create better societies. This is sufficient to conclude that fully implementing equal human rights will create the best possible democracy. Nevertheless, authorities prevent the dissemination of knowledge about equal human rights to maintain their social privileges. As a result, social life has always been based on exerting individual power over people rather than on equal human rights, preventing people from reaching social prosperity.
Democratic anarchy may solve social problems and provide the best life possible for all. Teachers will not need to teach people how to create a good society; democratic anarchy will do so spontaneously, and people will love the result. This paper argues that people cannot achieve more significant societal progress than by implementing equal human rights. Nothing more is needed to build a bright future for humankind, and nothing less will do. Equal human rights are the greatest discovery of all time. Therefore, opening a public discussion about democratic anarchy is essential for building a bright future for humankind.
No stake is greater for humanity than the possibility of building a good society for all people, as democratic anarchy offers. People can run a brief experiment with democratic anarchy in a community to answer dilemmas they may have about it. If such testing confirms that democratic anarchy can solve society’s problems and build a good society, then we can quickly launch the greatest social revolution in human history.
References:
Fromm, Erich. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. 2017.The State and Revolution, New Delhi: Bahri Publication.
Johnson, Boris. 2022. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s address to the Ukrainian parliament. Government UK.
Savory, Allan. 2021.
Stone, Oliver. 2016.
Šarović, Aleksandar. 1992. Humanism - A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of Society, sarovic.net.