Talk:Anti-democratic thought

Neutrality

I've had a read through this article and it seems a pretty neutral, factual summary of anti-democratic thought to me, so I'm going to remove the neutrality tag. If anybody disagrees, feel free to reinstate it and explain to me where to find this supposed lack of neutrality. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I take issue with the information stated in the lede. Its list of thinkers, philosophers, and schools of thought (however loosely the term should be applied) is comprised almost entirely of far-right ideologies and their adherents. I don't think that opposition to democracy is unique to those circles, especially in the historical context, and it's difficult to separate the criticism of a system of civic philosophy from the more generally misanthropic sentiments that prevail in such circles (and that are unrelated to the question of whether democracy is legitimate, valid, "good," or otherwise beneficial) when it's described explicitly as a feature of such ideologies alone. Simply stating that democracy is opposed by fascists, theocrats, monarchists, and anarcho-capitalists (I paraphrase) gives a reader the impression that these ideologies are the only ones that oppose democratic thought and links the two inextricably and without qualification or justification. In short, leading with an equation between [EDIT: anti-]democratic thought and extreme-right ideologies gives a reader the impression that the two go hand in hand despite evidence to the contrary (it's difficult to qualify H.L. Mencken, any number of individualist anarchists, or communists [e.g., the Shining Path] as belonging to any of the ideological schools listed). Additionally, there's a dearth of information in the lede to inform casual readers about what possible motivations for opposing democracy people may (or do) have. Though the lede isn't the place for an in-depth examination of the philosophical opposition to democracy and its rationale(s), a brief list of such arguments would be helpful and would shift the focus of the lede from far-right ideologies to the broader topic of anti-democratic thought. Beyond that, the rest of the article is interesting material, but it feels incomplete and constrained by the same (narrow) scope enumerated in the lede. It's worth pointing out that the term "anti-democratic" has been used ad hominem on any number of occasions by people adhering to widely divergent ideologies (I don't feel like looking up examples right now, but there are plenty), so I think that the title of the article might strain the bounds of neutrality. The Criticism of democracy article contains a lot of information that would be useful here, yet it feels like a more neutral platform than this article does. It might be beneficial to merge the information in Anti-democratic thought into that article. This would consolidate the information in both, reduce redundancy, improve the focus of the articles, make things easier for readers, and shift the focus from certain ideologies that oppose democracy toward criticisms of democracy per se. Regarding further issues of bias or non-neutral material, I can continue looking, but this seems a pretty comprehensive list of to-dos already. Does anyone else have any thoughts?108.254.233.180 (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Major omission

The article completely omits Islamic thought on this issue. Many Islamists, Wahabbis, etc. are opposed to democracy, believing that it is a sinful Western innovation. Of course, other Muslims are supportive of democracy, even including some Islamists. But still, while it is not the only position in Islam, anti-democracy is without doubt a significant position in contemporary Islamic political thought, so it should be mentioned. 60.225.114.230 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Another major omission seems to be the entire field of individualist anarchism. Only anarcho capitalism is mentioned in the opening of the article, but this isn't even followed by any AnCap thought on the subject. All individualist anarchists, that I'm aware of, and not just AnCaps, are anti-democratic. Their reasons vary from pragmatic failures historically (and lack of successes in the long term), to ethical objections to "polite mob rule". I can't contribute myself, as I'm very busy, but I came here hoping to get some of that side of the argument and got exactly none of it. The authoritarian/statist side of the argument is covered, but the anti-authoriatarian arguments are completely missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2373:D7B0:8183:104:145:B9E0 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Christian anti-democratic thought equally major omission

There is no doubt that Muslim antidemocratic thought is a major issue, but Christian anti-democratic thought is also extremely important historically.

As early as Saint Gregory the Theologian and Eusebius of Caesarea, it was generally viewed by orthodox Christians that democracy was entirely and rigidly incompatible with monotheism and led invariably to a disordered, anarchic atheist society. This view held firm until the Reformation and was re-stated strongly by Joseph de Maistre, later the Church under Pope Pius IX, and also by Erik von Kühnelt-Leddihn. Although officially such views have been weakened since Rerum Novarum, there is little doubt that this Christian anti-democratic tradition had a significant role in the democratic rollback of interwar Europe, and possibly upon the attempts at dismantling the public sector in the US and Britain during the 1980s.luokehao, 2:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Lenin

The article currently claims that Lenin opposed democracy, using a primary source (Lenin's own writings in The State and Revolution). There, Lenin claimed that democracy represents "the subordination of the minority to the majority" and "an organization for the systematic use of violence by one class against another." But Lenin did not intend this as a criticism of democracy. Lenin is very explicitly in support of the systematic use of violence by one class (the proletariat) against another (the bourgeoisie). His argument is not that democracy subordinates the minority to the majority and is therefore bad. On the contrary, his argument is that democracy subordinates the minority to the majority and is therefore good (or at least necessary).

This is simple enough to verify. The State and Revolution is full of references to "proletarian democracy" and Lenin repeatedly expresses his support for such a form of democracy:

• "It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. The organ of suppression, however, is here the majority of the population, and not a minority, as was always the case under slavery, serfdom, and wage slavery. And since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force" for suppression is no longer necessary! In this sense, the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfil all these functions, and the more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power." [1]
• "In this connection, the following measures of the Commune, emphasized by Marx, are particularly noteworthy: the abolition of all representation allowances, and of all monetary privileges to officials, the reduction of the remuneration of all servants of the state to the level of "workmen's wages". This shows more clearly than anything else the turn from bourgeois to proletarian democracy, from the democracy of the oppressors to that of the oppressed classes, from the state as a "special force" for the suppression of a particular class to the suppression of the oppressors by the general force of the majority of the people--the workers and the peasants." [2]

Lenin also attacked capitalism for not being sufficiently democratic, and argued that socialism will bring true democracy:

• "We cannot do without officials under capitalism, under the rule of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat is oppressed, the working people are enslaved by capitalism. Under capitalism, democracy is restricted, cramped, curtailed, mutilated by all the conditions of wage slavery, and the poverty and misery of the people. This and this alone is the reason why the functionaries of our political organizations and trade unions are corrupted - or rather tend to be corrupted—by the conditions of capitalism and betray a tendency to become bureaucrats, i.e., privileged persons divorced from the people and standing above the people." [3]
• "To develop democracy to the utmost, to find the forms for this development, to test them by practice, and so forth--all this is one of the component tasks of the struggle for the social revolution." [4]

For these reasons, I do not believe Lenin or Leninism should be included in this article. Lenin does not oppose democracy in general; he opposes only "bourgeois democracy," while supporting "proletarian democracy." So I will be bold and remove the Lenin section. User1961914 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can make a distinction from Communist rhetoric (disregarding whatever one's personal opinions are of it) and Communism in practice (or at the very least what was claimed as Communist regimes). It would be poor judgement to exclude the USSR, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Cuba, the DPRK, and others. Despite their differences, all these regimes 1. Claimed a greater degree of philosophical heritage in Marxism-Leninism than most other nations, and 2. Limited the democratic process in some ways, either by restricting opposing parties, restricting who can be voted in or what can be voted on, and/or by influencing elections when held.

If the response is "X regime was not truly Communism", that is fine, but we can absolutely categorize those regimes as something, and give them exposure here.

108.6.212.22 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The necessary response is indeed "X regime was not truly Communism". No state espousing the ideals of Marxism-Leninism or any other variant of communist ideology has ever claimed to have achieved communism, and no rational observer would disagree. These states were/are socialist. The specific ruling parties of these states may call themselves "communist" parties, but that describes their vision to achieve communism through building socialism, it does not describe the production relations of their state, for their is no state in a true theoretical communist society. See Socialist state and Communist society.

We can absolutely categorize these regimes as something, they were/are socialist states governed by Marxist-Leninist parties with the intention of eventually achieving a communist society (with the exception of the DPRK, which no longer ascribes to Marxism-Leninism, though I'd agree they "claim a greater degree of philosophical heritage" in that regard).

Your second point, however, is incredibly contentious, not in regards to whether the aforementioned states did/do these things but in regards to whether states far outside of the realm of Marxism-Leninism also do these things. "Limiting the democratic process in some ways" is incredibly vague. In fact, Lenin criticized "bourgeois" democracy on precisely these grounds. Conversely, you criticize "proletarian" democracy on precisely these grounds. If we are to uphold WP:NPOV, we mustn't let semantic squabbles obscure the fact that neither Leninist nor liberal democratic though could possibly be considered "Anti-democratic thought". Both schools repeatedly profess their adoration for democracy (though they perceive it differently). This is an article dedicated to Anti-democratic thought, not to "exposing" regimes that you happen to disagree with. Lenin has no place in this article, just as Thomas Jefferson does not. --Alexmunger (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A user has vandalized the page a few months ago and removed all the sources from much of the material

Could someone please restore the removed sourced from the vandal anon user who did this in April of this year.--R-41 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for More Additions

With the breadth and depth of writings on this issue, this article can be as long as or longer than the article on Democracy itself.

Some level of categorization may be required, either expounding on each view chronologically (mirroring the Democracy article's organization for cross-referencing, i.e. Ancient thought, Middle Ages, Modern Era, Early Modern Period, 18th and 19th centuries, 20th and 21st centuries), or splitting anti-Democratic thought by source (e.g. Religious Anti-Democratic Thought, Secular Royalist Anti-Democratic Thought, and Secular Non-Royalist Anti-Democratic Thought.)

Regardless, here are some authors, texts, arguments, and leaders that meet Wikipedia's rules for inclusion:

• Aurelio Lippo Brandolini, in Republics and Kingdoms Compared, King Mattias Corvinus in-character argued against a democratic Republic.

• De Maistre, in The St. Petersburg Dialogues and Studies on Sovereignty

• Madison and Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, specifically Fed. 10 & 14. expressing skepticism in the factionalism that may occur in Democracies over Republics

• JS Mill, in Considerations on Representative Government (and On Liberty to a lesser extent) who argued simultaneously for the implementation of Democracy and restrictions to it (limiting the scope of the franchise of voting, limiting what can be voted on, and proposing the votes of those able to vote to be weighed differently).

• Bryan Caplan, in Myth of the Rational Voter

• Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially in his Democracy: The God That Failed, arguing from a Capitalist perspective

and more.

I am aware a distinction have been made between individual expressing purely Anti-Democratic thought, as in this article, and those expressing Criticism of Democracy, listed in that article. 108.6.212.22 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)