Anarchism – A more democratic, people-centered alternative to Representative “Democracy” (aka fake democracy)

Is there no better alternative to our Representative “Democracy”?

It is time we asked bold questions. How to cure the ills of governmental power? Is it possible, and desirable, to have no government at all? (Here, government = a central body with power concentrated in a few hands)
The short answer is YES.

“But how? How is it even possible to have no government?” We answer that as briefly and clearly as possible. Please read it, and comment your opinions. These ideas are of great importance to us, especially today, given the present global political conditions, how little time we have in the case of the climate catastrophe problem, etc.




We have already seen the ills of representative democracy. It is a democracy just for namesake. It is just an illusion of choice for the people – that they can choose the leader they want.
But in reality, no matter how fanatic they can be about a leader, the leaders are all about their own narrow self-interests – that is self-evident because all humans have self-interests and each person gives the primary importance to their own interests. Moreover, having a choice in choosing a leader is not the same as having a choice in choosing what happens to our lives, communities, etc. Everytime, we just hope they stand by the promises they make – but we always see that failing utterly. But we assume we just need a better leader. However, even the best of leaders cannot change things much. For one, all humans tend to act out of self-interest, even more so if they are given exceptional powers. Next, this system is top-down – the leaders at the top take most of the responsibility and have most of the powers: but that is very self-limiting because they are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. They cannot make all the decisions well or handle all things, even if we assume they are benevolent leaders. Thus the limitations are mainly on two levels.

Clearly, the solution to this is a bottom-up approach, where the powers start from the individuals and from the local communities. Anarchists thus advocate true democracy, i.e., direct democracy in place of representative democracy, which is not really democracy but more like majoritarianism and a rule by the wealthy and powerful. Direct/participatory democracy is advocated wherever it is necessary – for making decisions about the communes, in workplaces, etc.
But for this, we have a lot of objections. We say people have biases: but do the leaders not have biases? We ask how people, who tend to be ignorant, can choose the best for themselves. But clearly, they can decide what they need better than can any leader at the top. We also see how the leaders are not doing very better: they also tend to be ignorant, biased and so on – they often tend to be far worse than the average citizen.

There is a social and political philosophy – called Anarchism – which argues that such coercive power structures as the State (roughly means government) are not very useful and are, on the contrary, harmful, and thus need to be done away with. They argue for a people-centred society – where the individual has maximum freedom but is not harmful to others. These free Individuals then form free associations to work together and build up the society from the bottom, based on our needs – for we know our needs better than any representative does. There are no masters or slaves in this society but rather we all work together, cooperatively and based on mutual aid.
This can be seen as the next step to Grama Panchayat system, as Bhagat Singh mentioned in his essays.

In this society, there would not be a formal Law as such but there are some basic rules which can be summed up by the term – Anarchy. Anarchy is when there is no ruler – thus it refers to absence of oppression and exploitation. No one can oppress or exploit others – that’s the basic rule. As long as one does not oppress/exploit others, one is free to do what they want. In this freedom, the individual finds their greatest development – which includes physical and mental well-being and development of intellectual faculties. And individuals like this, with a developed individuality, then co-operate to build the society together and develop things. Anarchists are opposed to all forms of oppression – patriarchy, Caste, racial supremacism, capitalism, etc.

What about crime? Will the society not descend into violence and crime if the government is at once abolished? First of all, Law does not stop crime. It only seeks, afterwards, to punish those who commit it – and also note that law is not morality: sometimes, what is moral may not be legal and what is legal may not be moral.
Those who do not commit anti-social deeds, do not commit them no matter what – whether there is law or not. Those who commit them do not stop, whether there is law or not.

But what causes crime? – we need to ask ourselves that, first. Punishment is very ineffective at dealing with crime, but our society still has this grand illusion. Punishment stimulates temporary obedience due to fear, but in the long-term it brutalizes the individual and makes them more prone to further criminal activities. It also does not address the causes of crime. Moreover, prisons are a breeding ground for more crime.

Thus, anarchists say we should address the root causes of crime – especially poverty, but also things like harmful religious and moral indoctrination (sexism, for instance). They also point out that mental health illnesses need to be addressed so that those individuals would not commit anti-social deeds. However, even after we reorganize society in such a (i.e., anarchist) manner, even after crime is largely diminished, it is not possible to completely stop crime: so when such acts are committed, anarchists say we should rehabilitate the offender, or, at the last resort, incarcerate the individual in humane conditions, especially if the individual is likely to commit a series of further crimes and rehabilitation fails, say due to a serious mental illness.
They point out that punishment not only increases overall harm, it is also wrong because we do not have a complete free will: our behaviors are decided largely by our genes, our upbringing, our brain structure, our environment, etc. That is, better alternatives – broadly referred to as rehabilitation – are advocated instead.

Anarchists believe in humans, that we are not so inherently bad but are shaped mainly by our surroundings – and is that not true? Our views, behaviors, beliefs, morality etc have all changed with time, mostly improved, and also we are both capable of great peace and love as well as brutal violence – all based mainly on factors like our environment, upbringing, etc.

Authoritarians, on the contrary, insist that humans are by nature evil and thus need a ruler – that is ironic and suspicious, because it’s usually the rulers that tend to be the worst specimen of the society. And also, if humans are evil by nature, how can some evil men govern others?
If people are incapable of governing themselves, how can they govern others?
Whichever way, government, in the sense of a top-down authoritarian, coercive structure, seems to be both undesirable and harmful.

But what about its practicality? Does anarchy work?
Apart from some of the greatest thinkers embracing these ideas, these ideas actually work in practice – we know because there are countless examples of anarchist societies, of both present and past. There are at least three mass societies (comprising a few millions of people) where anarchism was practically implemented and it worked well: Spain, Ukraine, Manchuria. They worked well but did not last long because of the combined forces of imperialism, fascism and bolshevism. But that is only a reason for us to oppose authoritarianism all the more and not to embrace authoritarianism. But there are many other such societies at a smaller scale and have lasted pretty long, especially tribal societies.
There are well over 100 examples of anarchy working in practice.

This piece is kind of brief so we are sure it does not address many things, at least not in much detail. So for a more detailed understanding, we recommend reading the following (all in PDF):

Anarchy (a pamphlet, around 30 pages long)

Anarchism and Other Essays (a book, around 100 pages long)

Anarchy Works (a book that analyzes anarchism in theory and practice, with examples of anarchist societies, where anarchy was practically implemented)

These ideas are of great importance to us all, for a much better and prosperous society, greatly devoid of misery (such as poverty).

Bhagat Singh was also very inspired by these ideas and wrote a few essays on it, and here‘s a PDF of those essays. And Gandhi was also a philosophical Anarchist, inspired by the Christian Anarchist Leo Tolstoy.