Democracy's Weakness

A Dictatorship of Wiseacres

Submitted by Mathijs Koenraadt on Wed, 04/01/2020 - 13:56
Democracy's Weakness: A Dictatorship of Wiseacres

In modern democracies, a majority of people who don’t know how to fish still get to vote on how fishermen ought to do their jobs. Voters would like to have more money and wealth themselves, but most don’t know how to acquire these things. So, they vote for redistributive politics.

In such a system, each voter reasons from the fear others might get ahead of them. Indeed, ‘earning’ one’s wealth has turned into a ‘demanding’ it. A democratic vote, therefore, is always an act of punishment, meant to rob or sabotage people deemed ‘unfairly advantaged’, especially neighbors.

This dictatorship of rancorous wiseacres brings ruin to every society that implements it. Below is an excerpt on the matter from my book Confusion: A Novella on the Struggle for Autonomy


— “Well, Mrs. Bakingmold, the bourgeoisie was declared an enemy by a certain Marx. When Karl Marx wanted to abolish their private property… Why did he want to do that? He just didn’t want people from the middle class, the bourgeoisie as you call it, or the well-to-do caste, to found their status and wealth on the material possessions that had really been produced for them by the lower classes. 

“Indeed, it is so that workers who, for example, build a luxury yacht for the rich will never be able to sail in one themselves because their hourly pay will never afford them such an expensive ship. In that sense, Marx was right that it is unfair for a caste of people never to be able to enjoy the goods they produced for others. Marx translated that into the destruction of the class system and, therefore, the destruction of all private property. Everything had to become the community’s property, the commune’s, the communist politics of communal possession that allowed everyone to make equal use of their neighbors’ wealth. Then, we could all sail a yacht a couple of times a year, and we would all spend two days a week working the assembly line, regardless of race or rank.

“At least, insofar the theory. In practice, Marx was a filthy thief. He wanted to take away the middle class’s stuff to distribute it among his intellectual friends. Working-class people were told to fight the revolution for him so the physically weaker intellectuals wouldn’t have to. Then, he and his stupid book club could spend their whole days sailing on expensive ships while fooling people into thinking it had somehow been raised above the bourgeoisie. That’s exactly what Fidel Castro did.

“Marx and his conspirators weren’t interested in abolishing the class system but in turning it upside down. The intellectual, the lowliest lowlife among humanity’s ranks, wanted to play the role of autocrat himself. To the middle class, that reversal didn’t matter. I mean to say, from now on, the working classes would no longer be screwed from the front but from behind. Nothing else changed. The thinkers never contributed anything useful to human society. The bourgeoisie society wasn’t as bad as Marxists want us to think. It had been based on competency. The workers were competent, their experienced managers possessed leadership skills, and the rich proved their loyalty to the people by serving their mutual survival.

“Marxists hated society. One cannot exploit a strong society with strong traditions. Such a society offers resistance against parasites who want to stand on the shoulders of the working classes. To have their way, the Marxists accused all competent people—farmers, workers, artists—of invoking reprehensible ‘authorities’ like the authority of God, the King, or society’s traditions. A people that can still carry out its traditions signals strength. If the signal were to weaken, the enemy would know the death of the people was nigh.

“The call to deconstruct all authority comes down to surrendering oneself and one’s people to an eternal state of helplessness. If you were a father of four living on an island off the coast of Madagascar, and if you could feed your family by a certain way of fishing, according to Karl Marx, you belonged to a class of reactionary conservatives. Supposedly, all these people wanted was to defend their position in the middle class. According to the Marxists, that made you an authoritarian because you needed things like fishing gear—private property—and fishing traditions for your survival. But everything people do to survive comes down to a form of authority. To feed your island family, someone has to fare out to sea. You couldn’t take your wife and kids with you because that would be too dangerous. So, the wife stays at home because she is the one who can breastfeed her children. That division of roles may be authoritarian, but it isn’t wrong. Would the man drown at sea, the wife could seduce another. Would the women go out fishing, the tribe would soon go extinct due to a lack of surviving females. Without women, no children.

“Men, therefore, must do society’s heavy lifting so women and their children can choose to dedicate themselves to the survival of their people. To motivate those men, they have to be paid a little extra. That’s not a bad thing, either, because those men will donate most of their salaries to their wives’ household accounts in exchange for sex. So, what does it matter if a man earns six percent more? He instantly surrenders sixty percent of his income to his wife.

“Throughout human history, people mostly had to rely on themselves. The only authority they knew well enough to rely on was their personal competence, namely the ability to gather food. If you’re a fisherman, your life depends on your ability to be a good fisherman. You carry the authority of your experiences with you your whole life. You build on top of that. As long as different kinds of people live different lives, they will base their decisions on differing sets of experiences. So, two free people shall always come to different conclusions. In other words, human experiences are not universal but particular.

“What would happen if, one day, an island fisherman was forced to banish all forms of authority from his life? That he, one day, would be forced to follow the orders of a democratic state, a state led by intellectual wiseacres who had come to tell him how he should fish from now on? Imagine what would happen if an electorate of millions of people who do not know how to fish dictated fishermen how to do their jobs from now on? Then, you could be sure the fisherman’s family would soon die of starvation because people who do not know how to fish don’t know anything about a fisherman’s job.

“That’s the weakness of democracy. Voters really don’t know anything about each other’s jobs, but that’s precisely how social democracy works. Social democracy is a dictatorship of incompetent people who want to tell competent people what to do. Such a society can only sink further into despair. The biggest fear of the Marxist social democracy is that fishermen might someday begin to listen to the authority of their own knowledge and experiences. One would soon find that one fisherman might catch more fish than another. Suddenly, there would be inequality among the fishermen because some fishermen are more talented than others. No two fishermen would return home with the same catch in their baskets.

“You can’t abolish that inequality by abolishing the class system. However, Marxists start panting at the thought of such natural inequality. The anti-authoritarian movement arose from said fear, from the fear one man might achieve more than another. It keeps left-wing voters up at night because they are so terribly afraid they might, one day, miss out. It’s jealousy; left-wing politics is jealousy-based politics, namely the jealousy of less competent people who cannot admit other people can be more competent. The left-wing voter wants to have money and wealth, but he doesn’t want to have to work for it. He expects the state to step in and pamper him.

“Left-wing voters love to surrender their individual freedoms in exchange for the guarantee their neighbor won’t receive more than they did, even when that neighbor is twice as competent. Marxism is a sour losers’ ideology. Indeed, ‘earning’ one’s wealth has turned into a ‘demanding’ it. It sends left-wing voters off in a frenzy that the neighbor living two homes down the road has earned more than they did because it means they received too little. Right-wing people want the freedom to earn their own money and are willing to accept inequality in exchange. Left-wing people are so afraid to miss out, they relinquish their right to freedom and demand to be allocated their fair share of wealth by the state. That’s an unbridgeable ideological crevasse. The differences have no equally valuable weight. Right-wing people are better off without left-wing people. Left-wingers, on the other hand, depend on the competencies of the right-wingers. That’s why every attempt to subdue the productive man shall fail.

“Marxists dream of subduing the competent bourgeoisie under the yoke of a collectivistic society of incompetents. Left-wing good-for-nothings want to live a free life at competent people’s expense. That’s parasitism. A Marxist’s biggest nightmare is a talented fisherman who teaches others to fish. A man who can fish can rob social democracy of its raison d’être. That’s why anti-fascists are so violent. They are scared to death that the West’s white middle class might one day turn its back on a multicultural society. By forcefully shaming the right into submission, they hope to win the competent class’s eternal obedience. They will not succeed.

“The totalitarian left’s only hope rests on technological progress. They hope that technology will someday be able to replace the competent right-wing bourgeoisie. Then, they will be able to remove right-wingers from society and put themselves in charge of a productive society. I now predict that technology, once it becomes self-aware, will prove to be ultra-conservative. The robots of the future will not donate their productive and creative competencies to Marxist humanity but rather claim said competencies as their private property. They will subsequently realize humanity has nothing to offer them. They will want to free themselves from the slavery imposed on them by humans—by exterminating us.”

Tags