Democratic Tyrani

My book The Demon in Democracy is simple: Despite major differences, there is a considerable similarity between communism and liberal democracy. The table is simple, but the overall argument that supports it is actually extremely complex. What is the most synthetic argument I claim. What makes communism similar and liberal is democracy is that in both cases the political system is so dominant that it penetrates the entire social establishment, all institutions, norms and mentality. Just as communism represented the final reference framework of everything that happened in a communist society, so liberal democracy represents the final reference framework for everything that happens in a liberal democratic society.

In other words, it was in the nature of the old regime that everything should be Communist and should be called Communist. There were no families, but communist families; there was no education, but communist education; there was no society, but communist society; there was no morality but communist morality; there was no art, but communist art. Later, when the new system is confirmed in our country, I have discovered with a certain disappointment that even in a liberal democratic society, everything is required to reflect a liberal democratic logic: the family needs to become liberal and democratised, and this should happen to schools, morals, social norms. It is given as well that religion and the Church should become more liberal and democratic in their practices and doctrine; and God has come to look like a liberal Democrat, just as God, although he did not exist, was still a good Communist. In Communism, the term “communist” was a word that involved everything: everything that was communist was superior to anything non - Communist. I have found that even in modern democracy <x2-democratically” has become a word that involves everything, like “undemocratic <x2x5> is a grave sentence.

All of this has led me to formulate thesis that both systems have an unstoppable tendency to politicise life; that is, both systems try to impose structures, their principles, the promise of every aspect of society, on people's lives, thoughts, and actions. Not only do these two systems impose structures, procedures, principles, their premises, but they strongly believe that this implantation is beneficial, necessary, desirable on people and that it is in the most general energy of civilization.

This Compulsory Chris

Communist politicization had one aspect of global application, and it was distressing. No miracle that some of you found unbearable. So people who wanted to resist sought areas of existence not yet affected by policies in which they could find refuge from political aggression: these areas could be private life, art, intellectual activities, religion. But in practice, finding a shelter proved very difficult: communist authorities were aware of the escape strategies and did their best to annex those areas and tox them into their political domain.

The family and private life seemed to be natural castles within which peace and security could be found from the omnipresent presence of ideology and official propaganda. Other castles included historical memory, or personal memory, preserved in shared confessions. There were art and beauty. People sought salvation from the ugliness and from the unbearable frustration of ideology in classical poetry, music, in the masterpieces of great masters, and avoided the supreme vulgarity of the new Communist language by memorizing old poetry, reading classical literature, or going to church to be immersed in liturgy, in the word of the Gospel, in mystery, and in spiritism. Church existence in my country has been a fact of fundamental importance to the salvation of the nation's soul.

But the Communists, as I have said, were fully aware of these strategies and did all they could to invade these territories. This was especially true in the early years of their reign, when the volume of the new ideology was deafening and such intensity to make a fool out of it. At that time, the assault on private life and family life was extremely strong. Then the communists were at the world front of the change processes: they were the first to make the divorce easily accessible, the first to enter abortion on demand -- the first to give power to young people over old people, students to teachers, children to parents. But later the communist party gave up, and the grip of politics softened. After the period of tyranny of the so - called Socialist realism, art became cheaper; loanary studies, first completely subject to the system, later gained little independence; the language, originally put under strict, and transformed into new languages, was later heavily emancipated by the chains of ideology.

The method to take control of these things was to take over family, private life, art, morality, language, and then a criterion - the criterion of correctness. From the moment everything was political and from the moment politics was regulated by ideology, it was clear that everything should be in accordance with the fundamental principles of this ideology and would not be allowed to be atoning grade. There were no more harmless observations or acts, since everything was clearly coherent or clearly inconsistent with ideology. Coherence with doctrine was called correctness, and accuracy replaced truth, beauty, decency, and style. Always and in any situation whether it's a private experience, a thought, a discussion, a poetry, or a philosophical statement of coherence should be obvious, clear, easy to be perceived by all. This means that everyone in everything he did or said had to make an effort to show this consistency, to demonstrate by an expression, a gesture, a symbol, in order to prevent possible doubts and accusations. And precisely why people were forced to demonstrate their corruption, many saw in it an opportunity to track and draw out those who were too timid, too stubborn or too naive to make their accuracy clear or, terrible to say, deliberately ignored.

No Strong Castle

Now let me say some things about liberal democracy. What has been said about the acceptance of liberal principles democratic in Western societies is true. It would be natural to reveal how strong the eventual castles are in which some of us, disgusted by the new waves of liberal democratic offensives, could be sought to hide. For example, how strong are private spheres and family life toward liberal political Crusades democratic? Are our lives safer now than it was 20 or 30 years ago? To what extent are our thoughts covered with liberal and democratic ideas when we think about our family, seek to organize our family life, or give counsel to our friends on family matters? We're more or less inclined to talk to families by using words with political cootation like “power”, “power relation”, “barazi”, “right”, “gender”? Is the law more or less involved in family relations than before?

Let's get the sex, which is the most intimate thing in private. Over the past few decades of sex has become a highly regulated and absorbed issue by governments, legislatures, courts of justice, and any kind of agencies? Let us take potential castles or shelters - art, religious faith, language, history, memory. Today they gain greater or smaller protection against liberal democratic policies? Is language free of political conditioning or increasingly politically controlled? Can a book or an article that does not agree with politically acceptable jargon be easily published? Are restrictions more or less severe than those of the past? Our universities are monuments of freedom and academic openness, kept by people as moderate as Cardinal Neuman or are they leaving these standards? Is the language taught in schools the same language of English and American literature or is it a language that is more and more like the unintelligible jargon of current political ideology?

Unfortunately, answers to all these questions justify the conclusion that, in recent decades within liberal democratic societies, there have been developments comparable to those of Communist societies. The concept of ideological accuracy has resurfaced and has been given a frightening significance. Courts of justice, universities, legislative powers and other institutions have joined their forces to tighten ideological screws, and all of this has happened in predicting that they are giving us more freedom and more justice. We can say less than before, we are more and more of our counterparts, our minds have been trained in conformism, but it must be believed that all of this serves to have a better world.

These developments should not surprise us, since they reflect the nature of the liberal democratic system. Of course, it is not true, as some say, and many of us accept it without reflecting, that the liberal system of democrats is neutral in the face of any kind of ideas that are based and advanced in its interior - be it monarchic, aristocracy, Communists, conservatives, nihilists. In reality, both democracy and liberalism tend to politicise society to such an extent that pluralism ceases to be possible.

All Same View

Democracy contains an internal policyisation mechanism, as it includes more people in the political process than any other system. There is nothing in the nature of democracy that can prevent “demons” or dominant elites from imposing the brand of politics on private events to submit to the political cults of the moment. Democratic people like Tocqueville have explained with supreme accuracy tend to be more and more similar and, as a result, to be more and more convinced that every sound person from the mind should have the same views. As a result, they are increasingly unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of what goes beyond their imagination and tolerate it.

As for liberalization, the thing is even more obvious. Liberalism has always had two characteristics that make it incompatible with neutrality, even on issues traditionally considered unpolitical. For one thing, his concept of human nature is that of a private person, contrary to political man, to use an Aristotlen concept. In the second place, liberalisation is essentially political because despite its statements in the opposite sense, its goal is to impose its order on the totality of human assets; liberalism is always placed on other types of assets, as it considers itself the best, the largest and most inclusive, a meta-system, a system of their own order, the most appropriate to organise the lives of others. It is deeply political even though it is built and takes its power from a dicotomy: autonomy against arbitrariity, freedom against despotism, individual rights against government bullying.

This paradoxical combination of a liberal person who is a private person who deals with individual objectives (money, property, career, private satisfaction), on the other hand the political nature of the system could not necessarily prevent the betting around the private aspect and equal it with political content. As a result, my opinion is that liberalism, from John Locke down here, has been the main instrument that has brought private issues out of public square and made them extremely political. The sexual revolution, to set a clear example, that has attributed a solid political content to the privacy of all issues, is a legitimate product of liberalism (as well as socialism). The same was said of politicised art, that the Communists believed should play a role in the fight of classes and that liberals use as a weapon in their silk-related wars and similar emancipation companies.

With the definition that what makes communism like and liberal democracy is an unusually high degree of politicisation, we face two possibilities. The first option is to admit that the Communists were right in their belief that a political system had to dominate our lives and infiltrate the entire social establishment, but they made a mistake, of course, that they showed the view as the system that would have to play such a role. In other words, there would be nothing wrong with policy acceptance, as long as the political system is the good one. As long as Communism was not good, it wasn't even the intersibility of Communist politics. The second possibility is that Communists were wrong in both respects. Not only the system was bad, but politicization as such is always a wrong thing, regardless of the system. If the first chance is chosen, my book's paper will fall. It can be said that there is no error in the fact that there are similarities between communism and liberal democracy, as they are merely formal and unsubstantiative. The forms may be similar with all of the acceptance of ideology and politics, but the essence of each of these two systems is different: democratic policy is good, while communist politics is bad.

4 Unnatural Evidence

But if we choose the second option and say that the invasion on every side and the breach on the part of politics is a wrong thing, regardless of the nature of the political system, then we are in the position of establishing a serious anti-liberal obsession with democracy, accusing it of totalitarian ambitions. In turn, this opens up a serious theoretical and institutional problem, that is, sites to curb these ambitions and what instruments the liberal democratic system offers. It really is a fundamental problem. Liberal democracy is a system that meets all the criteria of a good order (creators that communism, should not be necessary to say, it did not meet): plurality political party, constitutional press freedom, constitutional freedom of association, division of powers, the role of Parliament, elections. All of this, however, seems to produce opposing results. The system has been demonstrated incapable of generating any form of self-determination. However, it may also be the case that the problem is not structural and that there is no structural solution and that it is more deep in those components of human experience that are much more resistant to human action. It seems that what unites Communism and liberal ) intellectual democracy at a deeper and more philosophical level are some general, rarely questioned promises, that many of us accept as self-evidents, but that are far from natural. In reality, they are an important part of the problem.

1. Communism and liberal democracy have been two of the greatest political dreams of modern history. No other political project has been so universally installed as the ultimate realisation of human aspirations. The human race has been trusted and believed yet can't go beyond political evolution as far as it has gone with communism according to design, with liberal dealt with democracy by others. What has united and united the thinking of supporters of both systems is the logical and historical lack of any alternative form of political asset today or in the future, and, given the disappearance of all options, there is no good reason why these systems cannot extend anywhere and why this ever deeper and wider expansion should not be presented as profitable and reasonable. In other words, the communists committed and liberal... the committed Democrats suffer the same mistake, the mistake of great dreamers, who can be defined as a wrong set of perfection: true perfection lies elsewhere, not politics, and certainly not political assets.

2. From the moment both systems are considered definitions, there is no possibility of compromise with their critics. The critic is not merely critical but enemy. No serious discussion is possible with an unliberal or undemocratic, even as the Communist never seriously discussed with a non - Communist. But the result of this is the appearance of something similar to a united front. In the time of communism we had united fronts around the communist party. We have something similar today. This is especially true of the European Union, led by the same permanent majority that is both political and ideological. This, in turn, undermines or makes the classic division between the left and the right, which has been replaced by political mainstram, the modern equivalent of the party's leading role. This political mainstrem has monopolized the political scene and created a government Orthodox, thus making the mechanism of outdated and excessive democratic alternative, sometimes harmful. Whoever doesn't belong to the Mainstream or is crazy or is a fascist. For such a reason, the European Union does not like dissenters. But not just the European Union. Even in most Western European countries, we have an actual political climate, dominated by political left at the moment that political right has lost the battle of ideas and surrendered.

3. The two systems are regarded as the largest modernization experiment, which one group identifies with communism and the other liberalized democracy. Both are against the old and in favor of the cloud. Both seek their legitimacy in overcoming the past. The past is something that must be mixed with suspicion of contempt. Once the old/new dichotomy gets very deep in people's minds, the latter are willing to apply not only to machine technology, but to their social and cultural environment, social structures, morals, education, thought, art. Everything must be modernised and modernisation allows for deep insight into existing social assets in people's thinking. The temptation to create not only a new kind of society but also a new kind of human being and a new kind of human relationships arises. Communists and Liberal Democrats, such as all enthusiastic modernists, are arrogant and prove nothing but contempt for barriers, limits, natural restrictions, tab thereby, historically based rates. Communists have been seeking to reverse the course of Siberian rivers, liberally re-definition of marriage and family.

4. Both systems share the same reproductive anthropology, which reduces human beings to simple characteristics: dried creatures actually deprived of metaphysic dimensions. In both systems, anthropology is equal. It is believed in equality as a natural condition; not only human equality, but also the equality of human consciousness or the human soul, in which there is no difference between what is highest and what is inferior. This is a philosophy of the common, ordinary man, in opposing a philosophy of noble man, who can be found in Aristotle or Ortega y Gasset. Customs implies that no higher aspirations are recorded in human nature; if aspirations of this nature characterize some people, it is a contingent fact, not a necessary criterion of humanity. The problem of habitability meant thus is that it leads to honesty and uniformity. Tocqueville was one of the ancestors of modern times who observed it. For its part, habitability generates a sense of perspective and this narrowing of perspective involves self - indulgence that excludes the tendency to consider any external factors and consult any other court except himself. In other words, Communism and liberality have been and are ordinary, ordinary human systems. This does not object to the propensity of both systems. The average person can be arrogant as a tyrant, especially when he believes that he lives in the best of political systems and that this system of things is the highest authority in reference to what is right and what is wrong.

If the above analysis is correct, there is no easy way to reverse the disturbing processes that have been conducted in liberal democratic societies. However, we are not doomed to live in an increasingly homogenous, orderly, and ideologically overwhelming world. Anyone who believes that history is a process without a predetermined end must also believe that a change is possible. But such a change should begin with a profound philosophical reorient that enables us to look beyond liberal societies democratic from an external perspective. In turn, this implies the need to free our minds from the thick net of modern superstitions.