The sophistry of democracy. Why don’t you vote anymore?
By: David Mihailov
Tags: Freedom Of The Press, Empowerment, Politics, Democracy, Voter Fraud

photo by David Mihailov Budapest2013 The master and submission

It is said that democracy has a secret weapon, the vote. One hundred years ago, the right to vote was a privilege. Only certain people had it. Especially those who owned land or fortunes. It is also said that in the 1990s some European Countrys won the right to vote through the fall of authoritarian regimes. It is also said because of your vote depends the fate of the Nations and even of the whole World if we think about the green parties. It is said that you are guilty “a priori”, because you do not participate in the smooth running of the Citadel. Lastly, and most importantly, you are told to go to the polls. All parties urge you to vote. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, it’s important to go out and vote.

Let’s start with the first myth. Although there are many others. Yes. The right to vote was a privilege. But that privilege was in the hands of those who owned property. Because only through property you are an independent man. You are not an “employee”, you do not sign a contract of submission. For a submissive man, whether through social assistance, or privileges, or electoral gifts, or any other goods, cannot be called a free man. Capital gave weight to the vote, because it was exercised in full cause. It was exercised in the hellenistic democracies and 100 ago by those people who could use the means of voting: financial, political, commercial, etc.

The second sophistry is that we gained the right to vote with the fall of authoritarian regimes. Which is totally false. People were called to the polls and urged to vote before. Even today, voting is taking place in North Korea. And still with an exemplary participation percentage. Why, because any regime needs legitimacy. But why must to vote if the options are limited or non-existent? Isn’t that what democracy is today? About false options? About sophistry? About beautiful but powerless speeches?

Of course we have several options, but only under certain conditions you can run. And we know that the means are not in hands of many. When I say means, I mean financial, production and communication. We do not have these means. Even if we use them to communicate. For example, platforms like Facebook, to understand that the rules are not voted by us, just accepted. We just sign that contract for log in.

All parties equally urge us to vote. Of course preferable with them. But even so, some only advice you to invalidate your vote. Because somebody may steal your vote. It doesn’t even matter who you vote for. It is important to be that responsible citizen who exercises his right.

Isn’t that what this is all about? About recognizing these rights and duties? About admitting once every four years that you signed a Social Contract, a priori, with the formation of the State? Jean Jacques Rousseau explains in the Social Contract this social commitment of ours following the ideas of Aristotle, who said that the State is prior to the individual (Politikon). The vote is not as important as the legitimacy of the vote. A 25% participation cannot mean that the leader is legitimate. Regardless that may win the election with 100%, the social contract does not work! Their biggest problem for ruling class is Legitimacy!

The next argument is even more subtle. Because it makes you feel guilty. It makes you believe that all political failure belongs to you. That the mess you live in is your fault. That you were not a responsible citizen. No, you will never see those in power assume their failure. Failure is collective. We all share the original blame equally. As a primary sin. A priori you are guilty. Before and after. That you vote, that you voted wrong. That you do not vote, that you have left evil in the world through passivity.

They cut down forests through your own fault. And in a causal but sophisticated chain, because the false analogy is used: if the trees have been cut down, there will be floods, global warming, melting glaciers. So you’re guilty! That you breathe, that you live, that you don’t vote. All the time you have to save something! But not yourself.

Why would I vote for something I don’t understand?

That’s why we have to leave it to the specialists, they say. Like church use to say before translating Bible in vulgar language. You vote, but you can’t control your vote over this period of time. What kind of vote is the one whose power has neither a center nor a circumference? Since you vote, you send somebody to rule for 4 years, but have no control after all.

Is it all about the legitimacy of the vote since power is not in the hands of Demos+Kratos, since we do not understand its legislative, financial, bureaucratic mechanisms being so complex and obscure. How is it possible to empower a man with a vote who has no real means of being sovereign over his choices? When he has no access to the resources like fresh air, clean water, healthy food, public spaces, forests, roads closed with a barrier, free universities, what kind of right is this?

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in democracy. I think it is the best system, a system according to nature, which we find in the most developed social organisms such as bees (see this post). But I no longer vote as a way of protest. Because I do not believe in a democracy in which man is deprived of means. Of course we are all equal before the law. But I ask you, if you don’t have the means to defend yourself, if you can’t afford a lawyer, if you don’t have access to quality information that costs money and time, what kind of vote is that? I tell you, a null vote!

A vote that only wants to legitimise a certain ruling class. Not a democracy, but an oligarchy. The oligarchy of those who own the means ( money), the communication channels (the press and media) and the symbolic ones (technology and schools). They should vote, because is all about them!

The ruling class benefit from the creation of this social conflict. White vs. black, gay vs. pro-family, migrants vs. isolationists, pro-gun vs. anti-detention. Because such false problems create adherence. Hate, not class identity. Not economic reasons. All in the name of democracy. Because politicians live from this conflict. Because voting out of fear is their only weapon. Because this democracy is so bureaucratic, so complex and hidden that they don’t even understand it.

Can anyone explain how the money circuit works in modern society? Can anyone explain the theory of distribution of capital? Does anyone explain everyone’s right to quality resources and information? Does anyone explain the connection between property and individual freedom? Over his weapon to empower him, in addition to the right of property, which is a guarantor of individual freedoms? Does anyone explain that you can’t afford to be informed and vote when you work 12 hours a day?

NO! Because only a sustained, artificial conflict creates an emotional response that gets people to vote. Politics has become a matter of taste and subjective opinion, I vote because I like black or white. I vote because those are pro-life and these are pro-abortion, christians vs. atheists. In the end, the democracy is almost dead. The vote is just a way we have to legitimise the ruling class! Not about us! YES, it’s about social class…always been, from Karl Marx to the present day. We no longer have a class identity, but a gender one.

Bibliography

J.J. Rousseau the Social Contract, independent publish platform 2017;

Aristotel, Opere, Politica, ed. Univers Enciclopedic Gold, 2010;

“a priori”=before any experience. For more, see Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason;

Demos=from old greek δῆμος, ordinary citizens, common people from a district, in a city-state;

Kratos=from Κράτος, the God of Ancient Greek =force and power.

social class= for more see Karl Marx, Capital: Das Kapital.