CHAPTER III THE SOCIAL ORDER AND THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION
§ 1 the Policy of Violence and the Policy of Contract
The discussion contrasts violence with the principle of contract in human relationships and society. Historically, violence dominated all aspects of life, with the strong overpowering the weak, resulting in conflict instead of peace. Over time, societies recognized the importance of agreements and peace, especially regarding property rights, but political struggles often still rely on violence. Nonetheless, there is a growing belief that peace is more beneficial, as wars damage both the conqueror and the conquered, and most nations prefer peace unless they face threats. The philosophy of liberalism emphasizes the value of peace and economic cooperation over warfare, suggesting that aggression primarily benefits rulers rather than the people. This viewpoint promotes a society focused on peace, leading to greater prosperity and happiness for all.
§ 2 the Social Function of Democracy
Democracy plays a key role in society by allowing the government to reflect the wishes of the majority and ensuring freedom for people to express their political views. Liberalism focuses on the idea that governments should be chosen based on majority vote and have laws created by representatives elected by the people. Although some think that Liberalism and Democracy are different, they actually share a common goal: allowing individuals and groups to decide their own futures. The main benefit of democracy goes beyond just electing leaders; it also helps maintain peace and prevents violent revolutions.
Many believe that a key function of democracy is to select capable leaders, with the idea being that competition in politics allows for the most qualified individuals to be elected. However, it’s unclear if democracy is always better at this than autocracy or aristocracy, since capable leaders have also come from non-democratic governments. The real value of democracy is its ability to keep the government aligned with what the people want. A government must have the support of the majority to stay in power. If this support decreases, the government could lose its authority, often leading to violent change.
Democracy aims to avoid these violent changes by matching the government's actions with the desires of the people, which can lower the chances of conflict. A government that does not respond to the majority can cause significant social and economic problems, as seen in historical situations like revolutions. In contrast, when a country can avoid violent upheavals, it usually enjoys economic growth and social stability, as shown by England's long history of relative peace.
While it is important for people to govern themselves, not everyone needs to take part equally in every decision. In practice, smaller groups or committees do most of the detailed work of making laws, showing that leadership is necessary in democratic systems. The idea that everyone should directly participate in all government activities is unrealistic, and it ignores the fact that some people are better suited to lead than others. Indirect democracy, where elected representatives act on behalf of the people’s wishes, effectively achieves the basic goal of democracy.
Critics often mix up democracy with unlimited majority rule, which leads to the misconception that democratic power has no limits. However, real democracy needs to work within the framework of Liberalism to be effective. Without the rules and protections provided by Liberal principles, democracy can become just as oppressive as autocracy. Therefore, the effective functioning of democracy relies on its connection to Liberal values, emphasizing the importance of freedom and order in society.
§ 3 the Ideal of Equality
Political democracy is linked to Liberalism, which focuses on individual rights and freedoms. However, some believe that true democracy must go beyond Liberalism to include economic rights and equality, which could lead to Socialism. The idea of equality started from natural law, but it faces challenges because people are not all the same by nature. Historically, equality has been used to break down the strict social classes of feudalism, helping to maintain social order by ensuring everyone can participate in democracy.
For society to work well, those who can manage resources should be in charge, not just those born into power. Liberalism emphasizes equality before the law, prioritizing the welfare of society over individual wealth. Calls for complete income equality often attract those looking for personal advantage, which can create division between social classes. While the idea of equality is popular with many people, it should be carefully examined to understand its true effects in a democratic system.
§ 4 Democracy and Social-Democracy
The relationship between democracy and socialism has often been viewed as deeply connected, especially before the Bolshevik revolution. Many believed that democracy and socialism were essentially the same and that one could not exist without the other. This belief was rooted in Hegelian philosophy, which saw history as a process of increasing freedom. Initially, freedom was understood as something only a few experienced, but later it came to mean that all individuals should be free.
Radical thinkers adopted this idea, pushing for democracy as a necessary evolution. History was seen as a progression towards greater individual and social freedom, particularly for the working class or proletarians. According to this perspective, as social conditions shape consciousness, the move towards democracy is also a move towards socialism. Thus, achieving socialism and democracy were viewed as intertwined goals.
Within Marxism, the call for democracy was especially critical for countries experiencing autocracy. Opposition parties needed to advocate for democracy to establish political conditions for their activities. However, this pushed the topic of democracy to the background in socialist discussions. Despite claiming democracy as vital, there were debates about whether socialism could be achieved through democratic means or if it would require deviating from democratic principles. This led to the well-known controversy about the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marxism contains contradictions, often using terms that can have multiple meanings, leading to confusion and division among socialist groups. For instance, words like "revolution" can refer to gradual change or violent uprising, depending on context. The idea of the state was also complex, as Marx viewed it as a tool of class oppression, asserting that once the proletariat held power, the state would eventually fade away.
Despite its critiques of liberalism, Marxism struggled to articulate the importance of liberal freedoms such as freedom of expression. While it might have demanded these rights when in opposition, it often denied them to opponents when in power. In contrast, liberalism is committed to immediate democracy and believes it is essential for a functioning society. The historical developments culminating in the Bolshevik revolution forced social democrats to confront the violent aspects of their ideology.
§ 5 the Political Constitution of Socialist Communities
The higher phase of communist society is seen as a future place where people can grow and be productive without needing a government or force. Instead of controlling people, this society would manage things and resources. However, even in this ideal community, there would still be questions about how to work together, make decisions, and manage goods, which shows that political issues would still exist. History shows that attempts to create socialist societies often become authoritarian, lacking real democracy or choices for the people. The peace in this ideal society is different from democratic peace; it is based on strict rules and unchangeable leaders rather than having the ability to peacefully change leadership. This indicates a desire for control rather than the progressive change that liberalism aims for.
§ 1 the Policy of Violence and the Policy of Contract
The discussion contrasts violence with the principle of contract in human relationships and society. Historically, violence dominated all aspects of life, with the strong overpowering the weak, resulting in conflict instead of peace. Over time, societies recognized the importance of agreements and peace, especially regarding property rights, but political struggles often still rely on violence. Nonetheless, there is a growing belief that peace is more beneficial, as wars damage both the conqueror and the conquered, and most nations prefer peace unless they face threats. The philosophy of liberalism emphasizes the value of peace and economic cooperation over warfare, suggesting that aggression primarily benefits rulers rather than the people. This viewpoint promotes a society focused on peace, leading to greater prosperity and happiness for all.
§ 2 the Social Function of Democracy
Democracy plays a key role in society by allowing the government to reflect the wishes of the majority and ensuring freedom for people to express their political views. Liberalism focuses on the idea that governments should be chosen based on majority vote and have laws created by representatives elected by the people. Although some think that Liberalism and Democracy are different, they actually share a common goal: allowing individuals and groups to decide their own futures. The main benefit of democracy goes beyond just electing leaders; it also helps maintain peace and prevents violent revolutions.
Many believe that a key function of democracy is to select capable leaders, with the idea being that competition in politics allows for the most qualified individuals to be elected. However, it’s unclear if democracy is always better at this than autocracy or aristocracy, since capable leaders have also come from non-democratic governments. The real value of democracy is its ability to keep the government aligned with what the people want. A government must have the support of the majority to stay in power. If this support decreases, the government could lose its authority, often leading to violent change.
Democracy aims to avoid these violent changes by matching the government's actions with the desires of the people, which can lower the chances of conflict. A government that does not respond to the majority can cause significant social and economic problems, as seen in historical situations like revolutions. In contrast, when a country can avoid violent upheavals, it usually enjoys economic growth and social stability, as shown by England's long history of relative peace.
While it is important for people to govern themselves, not everyone needs to take part equally in every decision. In practice, smaller groups or committees do most of the detailed work of making laws, showing that leadership is necessary in democratic systems. The idea that everyone should directly participate in all government activities is unrealistic, and it ignores the fact that some people are better suited to lead than others. Indirect democracy, where elected representatives act on behalf of the people’s wishes, effectively achieves the basic goal of democracy.
Critics often mix up democracy with unlimited majority rule, which leads to the misconception that democratic power has no limits. However, real democracy needs to work within the framework of Liberalism to be effective. Without the rules and protections provided by Liberal principles, democracy can become just as oppressive as autocracy. Therefore, the effective functioning of democracy relies on its connection to Liberal values, emphasizing the importance of freedom and order in society.
§ 3 the Ideal of Equality
Political democracy is linked to Liberalism, which focuses on individual rights and freedoms. However, some believe that true democracy must go beyond Liberalism to include economic rights and equality, which could lead to Socialism. The idea of equality started from natural law, but it faces challenges because people are not all the same by nature. Historically, equality has been used to break down the strict social classes of feudalism, helping to maintain social order by ensuring everyone can participate in democracy.
For society to work well, those who can manage resources should be in charge, not just those born into power. Liberalism emphasizes equality before the law, prioritizing the welfare of society over individual wealth. Calls for complete income equality often attract those looking for personal advantage, which can create division between social classes. While the idea of equality is popular with many people, it should be carefully examined to understand its true effects in a democratic system.
§ 4 Democracy and Social-Democracy
The relationship between democracy and socialism has often been viewed as deeply connected, especially before the Bolshevik revolution. Many believed that democracy and socialism were essentially the same and that one could not exist without the other. This belief was rooted in Hegelian philosophy, which saw history as a process of increasing freedom. Initially, freedom was understood as something only a few experienced, but later it came to mean that all individuals should be free.
Radical thinkers adopted this idea, pushing for democracy as a necessary evolution. History was seen as a progression towards greater individual and social freedom, particularly for the working class or proletarians. According to this perspective, as social conditions shape consciousness, the move towards democracy is also a move towards socialism. Thus, achieving socialism and democracy were viewed as intertwined goals.
Within Marxism, the call for democracy was especially critical for countries experiencing autocracy. Opposition parties needed to advocate for democracy to establish political conditions for their activities. However, this pushed the topic of democracy to the background in socialist discussions. Despite claiming democracy as vital, there were debates about whether socialism could be achieved through democratic means or if it would require deviating from democratic principles. This led to the well-known controversy about the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marxism contains contradictions, often using terms that can have multiple meanings, leading to confusion and division among socialist groups. For instance, words like "revolution" can refer to gradual change or violent uprising, depending on context. The idea of the state was also complex, as Marx viewed it as a tool of class oppression, asserting that once the proletariat held power, the state would eventually fade away.
Despite its critiques of liberalism, Marxism struggled to articulate the importance of liberal freedoms such as freedom of expression. While it might have demanded these rights when in opposition, it often denied them to opponents when in power. In contrast, liberalism is committed to immediate democracy and believes it is essential for a functioning society. The historical developments culminating in the Bolshevik revolution forced social democrats to confront the violent aspects of their ideology.
§ 5 the Political Constitution of Socialist Communities
The higher phase of communist society is seen as a future place where people can grow and be productive without needing a government or force. Instead of controlling people, this society would manage things and resources. However, even in this ideal community, there would still be questions about how to work together, make decisions, and manage goods, which shows that political issues would still exist. History shows that attempts to create socialist societies often become authoritarian, lacking real democracy or choices for the people. The peace in this ideal society is different from democratic peace; it is based on strict rules and unchangeable leaders rather than having the ability to peacefully change leadership. This indicates a desire for control rather than the progressive change that liberalism aims for.