7.

4 Billion Cheers for Real Democracy

Summary:
In a real democratic entity, the people themselves
make all major political, legal, and judicial
decisions. To objectively evaluate the
overwhelming historical evidence and
common-sense arguments in favor of real
democracy, we must try to overcome
cradle-to-grave propaganda against it. Cultural
anthropology conclusively shows that throughout
most of human existence, our ancestors lived in
small, largely nomadic, hunting-and-gathering
bands. They ruled themselves, without chiefs,
masters, or kings. Their leaderless, close-knit
systems prevented the disastrous ascent of
psychopaths and freeloaders to positions of
power. They practiced economic egalitarianism
and were remarkably happy. Their happiness
could perhaps be traced to their freedom and to a
system that allowed them to live by the Golden
Rule: living unselfishly under a system which
rewarded unselfishness. We next turn our attention
to the literate and creative ancient Athenians,
showing that, for its male citizens, democratic
Athens was far better governed than either
contemporary “democracies” or their totalitarian
and oligarchic counterparts. Two contemporary
referenda and the system of governance of the
Berlin Philharmonic forcefully show that real
democracy could bear as many delicious fruits in
the contemporary world as it did in ancient Athens
and throughout most of human history.
"Compared to the better known surviving monuments of ancient Athens, such as the Parthenon, the Pnyx
is
unspectacular. It is a small hill surrounded by parkland, with a large flat platform of eroded stone set into
its
side. But it is one of the most significant sites in the city, and indeed in the world. For the Pnyx was the
meeting
place of the world’s first democratic legislature, the Athenian ekklesia (assembly), and the flat stone is the
bema or speaker’s platform.”
“Freedom is the sure possession
of those alone who have the
courage to defend it.”–Pericles of
Athens
“We live on a planet well able to
provide a decent life for every
soul on it, which is all ninety-nine
of a hundred human beings ask.
Why in the world can’t we have
it?”—Jack Finney
Democracy, for the Greeks who coined the word
(but not the system), meant “power to the people”
or “rule of the people.” Perhaps the best-known
example of genuine democracy (but limited to the
minority of male citizens) in a highly-advanced,
highly-literate, polity, is Athens and her sister
democracies of Ancient Greece. There, all
significant political, legal, and judicial decisions
were made directly by the adult male citizens.
Democratic Athens went to war if, and only if, the
majority of its citizens so voted; a man was exiled,
or condemned to death, if, and only if, his fellow
citizens so decreed. [2]
Eduardo Galeano whimsically captures the
essence of contemporary “democracies:”
“The other day, I heard about a
cook who organized a meeting of
birds—chickens, geese, turkeys,
peasants, and ducks. And I
heard what the cook told them.
The cook asked them with what
sauce they would like to be
cooked. One of the birds, I think
it was a humble chicken, said:
‘We don’t want to be cooked in
whichever way.’ And the cook
explained that ‘this topic was not
on the agenda.’ It seems to me
interesting, that meeting, for it is
a metaphor for the world. The
world is organized in such a way
that we have the right to choose
the sauce in which we shall be
eaten.” [my translation]
Overlapping Conceptual Barriers
against Genuine Democracy
Our task is not simply proving the superiority of
genuine democracy over all other known political
systems, but also letting go of ingrained
prejudices. [3]
Barrier 1: Cradle-to-Grave Propaganda
System.
Genuine democracy—along with compassion and
rationality—pose the greatest threat to the
enemies of the biosphere and the open society. No
wonder then that since infancy we have been
inculcated against it. We have been lied to
incessantly about the virtues of the Roman republic
on the one hand, and about the horrors of “mob
rule” on the other hand.
Such self-interested, ideologically- and
philosophically-bankrupt, propaganda campaigns
often meet with great success. For example, the
oligarchs led us to revere such enemies of
democracy in the Greek world as Plato, Aristotle,
and Alexander the “Great.” At the same time, the
oligarchs managed to obliterate the writings and all
but erase from our memories such champions of
liberty and decency as Democritus and
Antisthenes.
Barrier 2: Opposition of Misguided or
Bought Intellectuals
Throughout the ages, genuine democracy has
been laughed at by self-serving, brilliant, oligarchs.
A historian of Ancient Greece, writing in 1900,
remarks that “few sights are stranger” than the
spectacle of some Athenian intellectuals and
first-rate thinkers “turning their eyes from their own
free country to regard with admiration the
constitution of Sparta,” where a free thinker “would
not have been suffered so much as to open his
mouth.”
The self-serving falsification of the historical record
is widespread. Karl Popper:
“The history of the Peloponnesian
war and the fall of Athens is still
often told, under the influence of
Thucydides’ authority, in such a
way that the defeat of Athens
appears as the ultimate proof of
the dangerous weaknesses of the
democratic system. But this view
is merely a tendentious distortion,
and the well-known facts tell a very
different story. The main
responsibility for the lost war rests
with the treacherous oligarchs
who continuously conspired with
Sparta. . . . The fall of Athens, and
the destruction of the walls, are
often presented as the final results
of the great war which had started
in 431 B.C. But in this
presentation lies the main
distortion, for the democrats
fought on. At first only seventy
strong, they prepared under the
leadership of Thrasybulus and
Anytus the liberation of Athens,
where Critias was meanwhile
killing scores of citizens; for
during the eight months of his
reign of terror the death-role
contained nearly a greater
number of Athenians than the
Peloponnesians had killed during
the last ten years of war.”
“But after eight months (in 403
B.C.) Critias and the Spartan
garrison were attacked and
defeated by the democrats who
established themselves in the
Piraeus, and both of Plato’s
uncles lost their lives in the battle.
Their oligarchic followers
continued for a time the reign of
terror in the city of Athens itself,
but their forces were in a state of
confusion and dissolution. Having
proved themselves incapable of
ruling, they were ultimately
abandoned by their Spartan
protectors, who concluded a
treaty with the democrats. The
peace re-established the
democracy in Athens. Thus the
democratic form of government
had proved its superior strength
under the most severe trials, and
even its enemies began to think it
invincible.” [4]
Barrier 3: The Ruling Faction of America’s
Revolutionaries was thoroughly
Anti-Democratic
For Americans, there is still one more block on
their ideological journey towards genuine
democracy. Some founding fathers came close to
being genuine democrats, but the winning faction
falsely (and self-servingly) equated democracy
with mob rule.
Citizens of the USA are taught to admire the
revolutionary founders of their republic. Americans
are not, however, often reminded how averse
some of these founders were to the Bill of Rights,
how they betrayed their countrymen by
establishing the Rothschild-controlled First Bank of
the United States, how they brutally suppressed
popular uprisings, how the money lenders were
already exerting influence at the Constitutional
Convention, [5] and how close their country came,
during the Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, or Obama
presidencies, to establishing a dictatorship. These
betrayals have been glossed over by the official
record, so Americans find it hard to believe that
their brilliant, idealistic–and wealthy–founding
fathers chose a second-best political system for
their contemporaries and descendants.
The Evidence from Anthropology
Marvin Harris’ “Life without Chiefs” shows that the
current economic/political system—a system
characterized by have and have-nots, rulers and
ruled—is a historical aberration:
Once we are clear about the roots
of human nature, for example, we
can refute, once and for all, the
notion that it is a biological
imperative for our kind to form
hierarchical groups. An observer
viewing human life shortly after
cultural takeoff would easily have
concluded that our species was
destined to be irredeemably
egalitarian except for distinctions
of sex and age. That someday the
world would be divided into
aristocrats and commoners,
masters and slaves, billionaires
and homeless beggars would
have seemed wholly contrary to
human nature as evidenced in the
affairs of every human society
then on Earth.
1. The Natural State for Human Beings is
Life in Nomadic Tribes or Villages
For about 98 percent of our existence as a species (and for four million years before then), our ancestors
lived in small, largely nomadic hunting-and-gathering bands.
2. The Natural Political System is Real
Democracy and the Absence of Rulers
To the extent that political
leadership exists at all among
band-and-village societies, it is
exercised by individuals called
headmen. These headmen,
however, lack the power to
compel others to obey their
orders. . . . Among the !Kung,
each band has its recognized
leaders, most of whom are males.
These men speak out more than
others and are listened to with a
bit more deference. But they have
no formal authority and can only
persuade, never command. When
Lee asked the !Kung whether
they had headmen—meaning
powerful chiefs—they told him,
“Of course we have headmen! In
fact, we are all headmen. Each
one of us is headman over
himself.”
Native Americans enjoyed similar freedoms.
Speaking of the Iroquois at the time, Cadwallwer
Coldwell said: They hold
“such absolute notions of liberty
that they allow of no kind of
superiority of one over another,
and banish all servitude from their
territories.”
Charles Mann, in his book “1491 (Second Edition): New Revelations of the Americas
Before
Columbus” quotes Jesuit Priest Louis Henneppin:
Native Americans were “born,
live, and die in a liberty without
restraint; they do not know what is
meant by bridle and bit.”
They brand us [Europeans] as
slaves, and call us miserable
souls, whose life is not worth
having. Individual Indians “value
themselves above anything that
you can imagine, and this is the
reason they always give for it,
that one’s as much master as
another, and since men are all
made of the same clay there
should be no distinction or
superiority among them.”
Likewise,
Among the Eskimos of northern
Canada there was no law except
public opinion. Although no one
had authority, each person had
influence according to the
respect won from a community
which had intimate knowledge of
everybody.
3. Real Democracy Prevents the Ascent of
Freeloaders and Psychopaths to Positions
of Power
One of the chief characteristics of modern
societies is the power of psychopaths. Martha
Stout describes the Sociopath Next Door:
Imagine – if you can – not having
a conscience, none at all, no
feelings of guilt or remorse no
matter what you do, no limiting
sense of concern for the
well-being of strangers, friends,
or even family members. Imagine
no struggles with shame, not a
single one in your whole life, no
matter what kind of selfish, lazy,
harmful, or immoral action you
had taken. And pretend that the
concept of responsibility is
unknown to you, except as a
burden others seem to accept
without question, like gullible fool.
Now add to this strange fantasy
the ability to conceal from other
people that your psychological
makeup is radically different from
theirs. Since everyone simply
assumes that conscience is
universal among human beings,
hiding the fact that you are
conscience-free is nearly
effortless. You are not held back
from any of your desires by guilt
or shame, and you are never
confronted by others for your
coldbloodedness. The ice water in
your veins is so bizarre, so
completely outside of their
personal experience, that they
seldom even guess at your
condition.
In other words, you are
completely free of internal
restraints, and your unhampered
liberty to do just as you please,
with no pangs of conscience, is
conveniently invisible to the world.
You can do anything at all, and
still your strange advantage over
the majority of people, who are
kept in line by their consciences
will most likely remain
undiscovered.
How will you live your life? What
will you do with your huge and
secret advantage, and with the
corresponding handicap of other
people (conscience)? The answer
will depend largely on just what
your desires happen to be,
because people are not all the
same. Even the profoundly
unscrupulous are not all the
same. Some people – whether
they have a conscience or not –
favor the ease of inertia, while
others are filled with dreams and
wild ambitions. Some human
beings are brilliant and talented,
some are dullwitted, and most,
conscience or not, are
somewhere in between. There are
violent people and nonviolent
ones, individuals who are
motivated by blood lust and those
who have no such appetites. . . .
Provided you are not forcibly
stopped, you can do anything at
all.
If you are born at the right time,
with some access to family
fortune, and you have a special
talent for whipping up other
people’s hatred and sense of
deprivation, you can arrange to
kill large numbers of unsuspecting
people. With enough money, you
can accomplish this from far
away, and you can sit back
safely and watch in satisfaction. .
..
Crazy and frightening – and real,
in about 4 percent of the
population”….
Our ancestors had a fantastic system for sidelining
such dangerous people. Marvin Harris:
Inevitably there were freeloaders,
individuals who consistently took
more than they gave and lay
back in their hammocks while
others did the work. Despite the
absence of a criminal justice
system, such behavior eventually
was punished. . . . quarrelsome,
stingy people who do not give as
well as take had better watch out.
Vilhjalmur Stefansson:
It is nearly impossible, when you
know how primitive society works
under communistic anarchy, to
conceive of anyone with the
combination of indolence and
strength of character which
would make it possible for a
healthy man to remain long a
burden on the community. Those
who were useful to the
community, who fitted well into
the community pattern, were
leaders. It was these men who
were so often wrongly identified
by the careless early-civilized
traveler and the usual trader as
chiefs. They were not chiefs, for
they had no authority; they had
nothing but influence. People
followed their advice because
they believed it to be sound. If
you tried to keep more than your
share you became unpopular. If
you were persistently selfish,
acquisitive, and careless of the
general good you gradually
became too unpopular. Realizing
this, very likely you would try
moving to another community
and starting life there over again.
If you persisted in your ways and
stayed where you were there
would come a period of
unanimous disapproval. You
might survive for a year or even
a few years as an unwanted
hanger-on; but the patience of
the community might at any time
find its limit, and there would be
one more execution of a
troublemaker.
4. Economic Egalitarianism, Civility, and
Hospitality
“The absence of private
possession in land and other vital
resources means that a form of
communism probably existed
among prehistoric hunting and
collecting bands and small
villages.”
Stefansson describes Inuit society in the first
decade of the 20th century:
The system which I watched
breaking down under the
combined influence of
Christianity and the fur trade was
on its economic side
communism. Natural resources
and raw materials were owned in
common, but made articles were
privately owned.
Canassetego, a Mohawk, captures one difference
between real and self-described democrats (as
retold by Benjamin Franklin):
You know our Practice. If a white
Man in travelling thro’ our
Country, enters one of our
Cabins, we all treat him as I treat
you; we dry him if he is wet, we
warm him if he is cold, we give
him Meat & Drinks that he may
allay his Thirst and Hunger, and
spread soft Furs for him to rest &
sleep on: We demand nothing in
return. But if I go into a white
Man’s House at Albany, and ask
for Victuals & Drink, they say,
where is your Money? And if I
have none; they say, Get out you
Indian Dog.
5. Overall, Hunter-Gatherers were Happier
than we are
Here are two examples:
[The Copper Eskimos were] “to
all appearances so much happier
than any other people whom I
have ever known.” On the basis
of my years with the Stone Age
Eskimos I feel that the chief
factor in their happiness was that
they were living according to the
Golden Rule. It is easier to feel
that you can understand than to
prove that you do understand
why it is man gets more
happiness out of living unselfishly
under a system which rewards
unselfishness than from living
selfishly where selfishness is
rewarded. Man is more
fundamentally a co-operative
animal than a competitive animal.
His survival as a species has
been perhaps through mutual aid
rather than through rugged
individualism. And somehow it
has been ground into us by the
forces of evolution to be
“instinctively” happiest over those
things which in the long run yield
the greatest good to the greatest
number.I wondered if all the
thousands of intervening years
had brought the measure of
happiness to some of us that
these people enjoy, for they do
enjoy life every day, dancing and
chanting, visiting one another,
hunting when necessary. This is
their life, simple in all its
elements, from the day of birth
until death claims their pygmy
bodies.” [6]
6. Were Freedom and the Golden Rule a
Key to our Ancestors’ Happiness?
Stefansson writes:
On the basis of my years with the
Stone Age Eskimos I feel that the
chief factor in their happiness
was that they were living
according to the Golden Rule.
It is easier to feel that you can
understand than to prove that you
do understand why it is man gets
more happiness out of living
unselfishly under a system which
rewards unselfishness than from
living selfishly where selfishness
is rewarded. Man is more
fundamentally a co-operative
animal than a competitive animal.
His survival as a species has
been perhaps through mutual aid
rather than through rugged
individualism. And somehow it
has been ground into us by the
forces of evolution to be
“instinctively” happiest over those
things which in the long run yield
the greatest good to the greatest
number.
7. How Paradise Was Lost
With agriculture and storage of food, according to
Harris, eventually stratification arrived. Gradually,
real chiefs and inequality arose, leading to our
present hierarchical system: “Chiefdoms would
eventually evolve into states, states into empires.”
But, one must ask: Can such a system work
among literate people? We shall now show that,
among other things, a version of real democracy
flourished in ancient Athens: the most creative and
culturally-advanced country that has ever graced
our weary planet.
Athenian Democracy
“Man’s law of nature is
equality.”—Euripides
Some of the advantages of genuine democracy
are immediately apparent. Unlike contemporary
western republics, in Athens, promises to the
people could not be as readily broken, for the
people were always in charge. Influential
Athenians (especially the oligarchic variety) were
just as bribable as their contemporary western
counterparts, but in a system where real power, at
any given moment, resided with the citizenry, the
damage was more limited. The information system
in Athens was never taken over by the oligarchs
and life was simpler, so the people could more
readily vote for their interests and convictions. For
the most part, Athenians breathed cleaner air,
drank chemical-free water, and ploughed healthier
soils for their sustenance; their schools were
private (not state-run), and they exercised daily;
they were thus in better mental and physical shape
than contemporary Americans or Greeks
. Hence, in ancient Athens, human beings came
close to their truer intellectual, artistic, and civic
potential. In a partially real democracy like Athens,
dissident organizations could not be readily
co-opted, elections and trials could not be as
readily rigged, and politically-motivated
assassinations were rare. Overall, the Athenian
system served the public interest far better than
American oligarchy.
The ancient Greeks recognized the link between
genuine democracy and greatness. The historian
Herodotus, himself not an Athenian, clearly
perceived the causal connection between freedom
and excellence:
“Thus did the Athenians increase
in strength. And it is plain
enough, not from this instance
only, but from many everywhere,
that freedom is an excellent thing
since even the Athenians, who,
while they continued under the
rule of tyrants, were not a whit
more valiant than any of their
neighbors, no sooner shook off
the yoke than they became
decidedly the first of all. These
things show that, while
undergoing oppression, they let
themselves be beaten, since then
they worked for a master; but so
soon as they got their freedom,
each man was eager to do the
best he could for himself. So
fared it now with the Athenians.”
Pericles, an influential Athenian before and during
part of the Peloponnesian War, put it this way:
Pericles of Athens, 495 (?)-429
BC
“Our political system does not
compete with institutions which
are elsewhere in force. We do
not copy our neighbors, but try to
be an example. Our
administration favors the many
instead of the few: this is why it
is called a democracy. The laws
afford equal justice to all alike in
their private disputes, but we do
not ignore the claims of
excellence. When a citizen
distinguishes himself, then he is
preferred to the public service,
not as a matter of privilege, but
as a reward of merit; and poverty
is no bar. . . The freedom we
enjoy extends also to ordinary
life; we are not suspicious of one
another, and do not feel called
upon to nag our neighbor if he
chooses to go his own way. . .
But this freedom does not make
us lawless. We are taught to
respect the magistrates and the
laws, and never to forget that we
must protect the injured. And we
are also taught to observe those
unwritten laws whose sanction
lies only in the universal feeling
of what is right. . .
“Our city is thrown open to the
world; we never expel a
foreigner. . . We are free to live
exactly as we please, and yet are
always ready to face any
danger. . . We love beauty
without becoming extravagant,
and we cultivate the intellect
without lessening our resolution. .
. To admit one’s poverty is no
disgrace with us; but we consider
it disgraceful not to make an
effort to avoid it. An Athenian
citizen does not neglect public
affairs when attending to his
private business. . . We consider
a man who takes no interest in
the state not as harmless, but as
useless; and although only a few
may originate a policy, we are all
able to judge it. We do not look
upon discussion as a stumbling
block in the way of political
action, but as an indispensable
preliminary to any wise action at
all. . . We believe that happiness
is the fruit of freedom and
freedom of valor, and we do not
shrink from the danger of war. . .
To sum up, I claim that Athens is
the School of Hellas, and that the
individual Athenian grows up to a
happy versatility and to a
readiness for varied
emergencies—to self-reliance.”
Unlike the United States, which has always foisted
oligarchic governments in its empire, the Athenians
supported genuine democracies in theirs.
Athenian lawmakers understood human
weaknesses, and they knew from bitter experience
how bribery could undermine justice. Obviously, it
is easier to bribe, and deform a passion for justice
in, a judge than a jury, and hence, all trials involved
a jury of one’s peers. The people, not paid
experts, were deemed most qualified to decide
judicial cases. There was no presiding judge telling
jurors that their task was to serve an abstract law
(as opposed to simple justice). Nor was there a
jury-free appeal system, which often, in America,
nullifies the people’s verdict.
But Athenian jurors were definitely corruptible too.
To minimize that problem, juries in important cases
were randomly selected from the entire citizen
body and numbered 201-501 or more (roughly
0.7%-1.7% or more of the 30,000 or so adult male
citizens). [7] Often the caseload was too heavy,
and so the number of jurors for each particular trial
was reduced to fifty. Now, a rich man might try to
bribe all fifty, so the legal system placed a
safeguard against that eventuality: The decision as
to which 50 jurors of the 500 would be assigned to
any given case was often made by lottery, just
before the trial began.
Steven Johnstone summarizes the Athenian judicial
system: [7]
Athenians performed democracy
daily in their law courts. Without
lawyers or judges, private
citizens, acting as accusers and
defendants, argued their own
cases directly to juries composed
typically of 201 to 501 jurors,
who voted on a verdict without
deliberation. This legal system
strengthened and perpetuated
democracy as Athenians
understood it, for it emphasized
the ideological equality of all
(male) citizens. . . . Laws against
bribery, panels of several
hundred jurors, and random
assignment to the courts,
effectively curtailed the direct
influence of wealth on trials.”
The Athenians knew that power-seekers could not
be trusted, so they filled many important public
offices by lot. Moreover, most office holders
maintained their positions for extremely short
durations. Athens thereby bypassed, to a certain
extent, a key problem in all other extant political
systems: The ascendancy of freeloaders and
psychopaths.
The Athenians did not give their rich people tax
cuts and bailouts. They thus avoided an
ever-growing mal-distribution of wealth. Athenians
respected private property and wealth, but
expected their leisure class to make greater
contributions to the public, by sponsoring musical
festivals or dramas (another Greek word), for
example. When the majority decided to go to war,
the rich had to risk their lives too. Moreover, in
times of war, each rich man was expected to
contribute one battleship to the navy of the
city—that is where our word liturgy came from
(public service; literally, a public building).
The contemporary decline of oligarchies like the
USA or Norway can be explained in part by their
system of banking and money creation. In these
nations, the bankers in charge of money creation
try to fabricate the impression that the private,
for-profit, central banks are under public control.
Witness for example the names they choose for
their key institutions—Bank for International
Settlements, World Bank, International Monetary
Fund, Federal Reserve, Bank of England, First
Bank of the United States. In reality, these
institutions are controlled by a few banking
families. The politicians, media, the bought
economic profession, pretend that these
privately-controlled institutions serve the public
interest, but the reality is the exact opposite: The
only goal of these institutions is to further enrich
and empower their owners, and they accomplish
these goals by impoverishing and enslaving the
vast majority. These institutions do not serve a
nation—they parasitize it. They are worse than the
black plague, because they never go away.
Instead, they steadily, mercilessly, and incessantly
devour their host. They are, by far, public enemy
number one. This, along with the fraudulent
fractional reserve system, permit the concentration
of wealth and political power in the hands of the
banking octopus and its military, academic, drug,
death squads, industry, health, farming, mining,
and “religious” tentacles. It also permits
destructive and deliberate manipulations of the
money supply, and the devastating boom-and-bust
economic cycles which further enrich and empower
a few banking families and enslave the public at
large. I wrote about this banking plague
elsewhere, but for the moment let me just say this:
If I were forced to choose between the current
rule of bankers or the rule of the Mafia, I’d choose
the Mafia, any day, any time.
The Athenians, by contrast, did not have that
parasitic fifth column in their midst. They had
access to plenty of silver in their own national
territory, and the state (not private interests)
issued the national silver or copper currency. The
state did not accumulate debt as a matter of
course, did not suffer the depredations of
fractional reserve money creation, nor planned
booms and busts. The Athenians thus avoided the
horrors of a bankers-dominated economic and
political system.
Another salient feature of Athenian democracy
involved ostracism (their word). Athenian
democrats well knew that their worst enemies
were the oligarchs within their own walls. In rare
cases, these traitors were brought to trial and
executed. But the Athenians did try to live up to
their ideal of moderation. Individuals who were
deemed a threat to the democracy were selected
by an anonymous vote of the assembly and
ordered to leave the city for ten years. They
retained their citizenship and possessions but were
required to remain in exile. By law, only one
person could be ostracized in any given year. As a
matter of historical record, though, ostracism was
rarely applied.
The remarkable political maturity, compassion, and
tolerance of a free people can perhaps be best
captured through two specific historical examples.
The first involves post-war reconciliation. A
contemporary legal scholar holds that the first
well-documented example of a
“self-conscious transitional
justice policy is provided by the
classical Athenians’ response to
atrocities committed during the
reign of the Thirty Tyrants . . .
The Athenians carefully balanced
retribution and forgiveness . . .
remembering and forgetting.”
Another historian comments on the same historical
occurrence:
“In 404 BCE the Peloponnesian
War finally came to an end,
when the Athenians, starved into
submission, were forced to
accept Sparta’s terms of
surrender
. Shortly afterwards a group of
thirty conspirators, with Spartan
backing (“the Thirty”), overthrew
the democracy and established a
narrow oligarchy. Although the
oligarchs were in power for only
thirteen months, they killed more
than 5 percent of the citizenry
and terrorized the rest by
confiscating the property of
some and banishing many
others. Despite this brutality,
members of the democratic
resistance movement that
regained control of Athens came
to terms with the oligarchs and
agreed to an amnesty that
protected collaborators from
prosecution for all but the most
severe crimes.”
Does this exceptional act of amnesty (their word)
and forgiveness sound like mob rule?
Another touching example of Athenian greatness,
of compassion in the midst of a struggle for
national and personal survival, is related by
Thucydides
:
“Immediately after the invasion of
the Peloponnesians all Lesbos [a
Greek island], except Methymna,
revolted from the Athenians. . . .
However, the Athenians,
distressed by the plague, and by
the war that had recently broken
out and was now raging, thought
it a serious matter to add Lesbos
with its fleet and untouched
resources to the list of their
enemies; and at first would not
believe the charge, giving too
much weight to their wish that it
might not be true. But when an
embassy which they sent had
failed to persuade the Mitylenians
to give up the union and
preparations complained of, they
became alarmed, and resolved to
strike the first blow.” After a
prolonged siege, the Athenians
prevailed, and, at first, the
assembly sent a trireme with the
order to execute all the men of
the rebellious island, and to
enslave the women and children.
The following day the assembly
reconvened, and narrowly voted
to overturn the first vote, and
spare the lives of most Lesbians:
“Another galley was at once sent
off in haste, for fear that the first
might reach Lesbos in the
interval, and the city be found
destroyed; the first ship having
about a day and a night’s start.
Wine and barley-cakes were
provided for the vessel by the
Mitylenian ambassadors, and
great promises made if they
arrived in time; which caused the
men to use such diligence upon
the voyage that they took their
meals of barley-cakes kneaded
with oil and wine as they rowed,
and only slept by turns while the
others were at the oar. Luckily
they met with no contrary wind,
and the first ship making no
haste upon so horrid an errand,
while the second pressed on in
the manner described, the first
arrived so little before them, that
Paches had only just had time to
read the decree, and to prepare
to execute the sentence, when
the second put into port and
prevented the massacre. The
danger of Mitylene had indeed
been great.”
Ask yourself: Have the Roman or American
republics just once behaved thus? And if not, isn’t it
high time that we reclaim as our own a political
system capable of such wartime wisdom and
compassion?
Other Key Features of Athenian Democracy
were:
Near economic self-sufficiency of the average
household
A genuine free enterprise system (largely
absent in modern so-called capitalist societies)
 A less materialistic world view
A small state
Minimal taxation in times of peace
Involvement of the majority in civic affairs
Athens was certainly no utopia. Slavery was
widespread and neither women, nor foreign
immigrants, nor even the Athens-born descendants
of these foreigners, enjoyed the full franchise. [8]
The Athenian Empire often exploited and lorded
over its member states, at times brutally and
cynically suppressing defections. Influential
Athenians were eminently bribable and often
betrayed their city. Athenians seemed unable to
entertain the notion of a genuine union on equal
terms with sister democracies (a proposal made
by Isocrates, among others), and were thus, in the
end, enslaved by the Macedonian dictatorship. But
Athens, I believe, still provides one starting point
for the design of a free, rational, and
compassionate society:
Within the body of citizens, the
Athenians achieved a degree of
political equality that minimized
the claims of wealth to a degree
unparalleled in most societies,
certainly in our own.” [7]
We can adopt the basic framework of such
genuine democracies as the illiterate Inuit or !Kung
societies of two centuries ago, the semi-literate
Iroquois, and the highly-literate Athenians, while
rejecting their injustices, weaknesses, and
superstitions.
Three Contemporary Illustrations of
Genuine Democracy in Action
In some contemporary oligarchies, on rare
occasions, the people are allowed to decide an
issue directly (through a referendum), without
massive rigging. In such rare democratic
outbursts, the people often vote wisely. Here are
two examples.
The Italian Demos vs. Nuclear Power
We have been warned about the menace of
atomic energy right from the beginning of the
nuclear age. Many years later, in 1977, for
instance, Ralph Nader and John Abbot wrote:
“What technology has had the
potential for both inadvertent and
willful mass destruction . . . for
wiping out cities and
contaminating states after an
accident, a natural calamity, or
sabotage? What technology has
been so unnecessary, so
avoidable by simple thrift or by
deployment of renewable energy
supplies?”
When the decision is left to the psychopaths, they
of course choose short-term gains, empowerment,
and raw materials for nuclear bombs, even though
a nuclear power plant may consume more energy
than it produces! After them, they might think, is
the deluge. But when the people are allowed to
decide, they often make the right decision, the
bankers’ propaganda avalanche notwithstanding:
“Italy is a nuclear free zone
since the Italian nuclear power
referendum of November 1987.
Following center-right parties’
victory in the 2008 election,
Italy’s industry minister
announced that the government
scheduled the construction to
start the first new Italian
nuclear-powered plant by 2013.
The announced project was
paused in March 2011, after the
Japanese earthquake, and
scrapped after a referendum on
12–13 June 2011.”
The Icelandic Demos vs. the International
Bankers
The global economic crisis is now in its eighth
year, and, the propaganda system
notwithstanding, the situation is getting steadily
worse. Real unemployment is nearing levels of the
great depression while the middle class is steadily
losing ground. Given the growing misery of the
American people, one would think that the USA
would stop its extremely costly wars of
aggression, yet the United States is spending even
more on killing innocents abroad. One would think
that the USA would stop producing weapons of
mass destruction that could kill billions or even
bring history to an end, but in fact they are building
more such weapons and deliberately risking an
all-out nuclear war. One would think that the USA
would dismantle its extremely costly police state
apparatus, but the bankers and their puppets are
actually spending more money on subjugating,
humiliating, incarcerating, and killing the American
people. One would think that, in such hard times,
greater income equality would be attempted, but in
fact the gap between rich and poor has grown by
leaps and bounds from 2008 to 2016. One would
think that the DC syndicate would permit the
bankruptcy of the international banks that caused
the crisis to begin with, and which, moreover,
according to this syndicate’s self-professed
capitalist (let alone Christian) ideology, are too big
to exist. But just the opposite is taking place: to
prevent the deserved bankruptcy of these banks,
our politicians (that is, the big bankers themselves
or their pawns) have robbed the world’s people of
trillions and they have, moreover, declared the
robber bankers too big to jail. Consequently, the
economic hard times will continue unabated, or
grow far worse, for years and years.
Ex-President of Iceland, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson
As of August 2016, there has been only one
exception to this sad tale of gargantuan
theft—Iceland. There, thanks to an inordinately
courageous and decent president, the people were
allowed to decide their fate, twice, despite the
strenuous opposition of the international bankers.
“These were private banks,” said Iceland’s
president, “and we didn’t pump money into them in
order to keep them going; the state did not
shoulder the responsibility of the failed private
banks.” The people voted and, consequently,
Iceland is now in far better economic shape than
countries such as Greece, Spain, or the USA. In
Iceland, too, some bankers actually ended up
paying for their crimes, and the country has, in the
wake of the crisis, moved in a more democratic
direction. The people of Iceland
“took a different path than the
United States after their financial
crisis and nationalized the banks,
threw some the people
responsible for the crash in jail,
and bailed out the homeowners
instead of worrying about only
bailing out the banks. And now
they’re coming back and their
economy is growing again.”
Even the corporate press, on the rare occasions
when it covers the Icelandic story, underscores the
fabulous potential of genuine democracy:
“Icelanders who pelted
parliament with rocks in 2009
demanding their leaders and
bankers answer for the country’s
economic and financial collapse
are reaping the benefits of their
anger. Since the end of 2008,
the island’s banks have forgiven
loans equivalent to 13 percent of
gross domestic product, easing
the debt burdens of more than a
quarter of the population . . . The
island’s steps to resurrect itself
since 2008, when its banks
defaulted
billion, areon $85
proving effective. Iceland’s
economy will this year [2012]
outgrow the euro area and the
developed world on average . . .
The island’s households were
helped by an agreement between
the government and the banks,
which are still partly controlled by
the state, to forgive debt
exceeding 110 percent of home
values. On top of that, a Supreme
Court ruling in June 2010 found
loans indexed to foreign
currencies were illegal, meaning
households no longer need to
cover krona losses. . .
. Iceland’s $13 billion economy,
which shrank 6.7 percent in
2009, grew 2.9 percent last year
and will expand 2.4 percent this
year and next . . . The euro area
will grow 0.2 percent this year
and the OECD area will expand
1.6 percent, according to
November estimates. . . .
Iceland’s approach to dealing
with the meltdown has put the
needs of its population ahead of
the markets at every turn. Once it
became clear back in October
2008 that the island’s banks were
beyond saving, the government
stepped in, ring-fenced the
domestic accounts, and left
international creditors in the
lurch. The central bank imposed
capital controls to halt the
ensuing sell-off of the krona and
new state-controlled banks were
created from the remnants of the
lenders that failed. Iceland’s
special prosecutor has said it
may indict as many as 90
people, while more than 200,
including the former chief
executives at the three biggest
banks, face criminal charges. . .
. That compares with the U.S.,
where no top bank executives
have faced criminal prosecution
for their roles in the subprime
mortgage meltdown.”
The Berlin Philharmonic
My chief goal in writing this article is the
starry-eyed dream of helping, in a small measure,
to save our species from its most probable
fate–perpetual wars, growing economic
inequalities, totalitarianism and, within a couple of
centuries at the most, extinction. This dire future
can be directly traced to scandalously criminal
political mismanagement of humanity and the
biosphere; hence this article focused on real
democracy as the organizing principle of all future
political organizations. I must make it clear,
however, that direct democracy is, in my view, the
best way of organizing each and every human
collective, including such things as factories,
soccer teams, armies (until we abolish them), and
the arts.
A Few Members of the Berlin Philharmonic
Let us look at what one commentator has to say
about this “coolest band in the world:”One
successful example of genuine democracy outside
the political arena is the Berlin Philharmonic, one of
the world’s leading orchestras (see for instance,
Thomas Grube’s documentary, Trip to Asia).
“When the Berlin Philharmonic
was created in 1882, its fifty-two
musicians decided to do
business differently. They wanted
a democratic system that not
only involved the musicians, but
empowered them as well. . . . It is
the musicians who manage
themselves, from scheduling
concerts, to making tour
arrangements, or handling
delicate personnel matters. . . .
the audition process is totally
inclusive. Every member of the
orchestra takes part forming an
audience for the auditioning
candidates on the stage of the
Philharmonie [the orchestra hall].
There are 128 votes and the
Chief Conductor, like everyone
else, has just one. The audition
tests stylistic understanding and
qualities of sound and
expression. Technique is a given
but never used as the main
criterion. I was told by one player
that he and his colleagues were
looking ‘to have their souls
touched by the music-making.’ . .
. Base salary is €90,000 gross
for all rank and file players.
Principals receive 15% extra.
There is no individual negotiation
of personal contracts as in the
USA. Transparency and equity
are seen as essential to
solidarity. . . . Besides playing in
the Orchestra every musician is
expected to be a soloist, perform
chamber music, and contribute
to the overall vision of the
Orchestra. . . . The Berliners
take a broad view of their
responsibilities as musicians.
Besides the established concert
series in the Philharmonie, the
musicians are involved in
community work that is
remarkable for the depth of its
engagement and interactivity. . . .
The musicians’ work touches
many, from kindergarteners to
prisoners, from teachers to
lifelong learners. There is no
contractual obligation for the
musicians to do this work. They
are paid no additional fees–just
travel expenses. They do it
because they understand the
inherent transformative power of
music and want to share that with
audiences who have not
previously experienced it.”
“The last time I saw the Berlin
Phil I thought it was the greatest
orchestra I had ever heard. I
thought that the time before, too.
The performances have such
energy, such commitment, such
movement, indeed the musicians
move physically with the music.
Even their very presence on
stage speaks of a different level
of communication and
engagement. I was very much
taken by their tradition at the end
of the concert of shaking hands
and thanking their colleagues. . .
. Their model is not the vision of
any one leader. It comes instead
from a collective of musicians
who are empowered to be
creative with new ideas, new
directions, and new challenges.”
A Philosophical Defense of Genuine
Democracy
My focus in this article has been empirical. That is,
I believe that the historical record provides the
best way of proving the superiority of real
democracy over any otherform of government. But
genuine democracy can also be defended on
philosophical grounds. Here for instance is John
Stuart Mill, a 19th century scholar: [9]
“The ideally best form of
government is that in which the
sovereignty, or supreme
controlling power in the last
resort, is vested in the entire
aggregate of the community,
every citizen not only having a
voice in the exercise of that
ultimate sovereignty, but being, at
least occasionally, called on to
take an actual part in the
government . . . Its superiority . .
. rests upon two principles . . .
The first is, that the rights and
interests of every or any person
are only secure from being
disregarded when the person
interested is himself able, and
habitually disposed to stand up
for them. The second is that the
general prosperity attains a great
height, and is more widely
diffused, in proportion to the
amount and variety of the
personal energies enlisted in
promoting it.”
Also, real democracy, by its very nature, minimizes
psychopathic interferences, anti-social behavior,
and income inequalities. It confirms its members’
views that they are masters of their own fate, and
produces overall happier people than any other
alternative. Such a society is therefore more likely
to enjoy greater cohesion and prosperity.
Finally, success depends on a system’s willingness
to acknowledge, and learn from, its mistakes and
to adopt policies that serve the public interest. In
totalitarian societies or oligarchies, policy makers
can suppress evidence that they made a mistake
or acted selfishly and shoot anyone who somehow
finds out the truth and who proceeds to
recommend the needed changes. In republics like
the USA or France, the same suppression is
commonplace, albeit it is not as obvious to
ordinary citizens. In either case, unwise or selfish
policies are likely to persist. In contrast, in real
democracies, the truth comes out more readily and
it is more likely to lead to criticism, debate, and a
change of course. Thus, real democracies enjoy a
built-in corrective mechanism which assures
communally-minded, wiser, more efficient,
sustainable, and just policies. [10][11]
“Curaçao’s National Monument, ‘Desenkadená’ (Breaking the
Chains) by Curaçaoan sculptor Nel Simon was erected at Rif
(Otrobanda) in October 1998.”
Closing Remarks
It is no accident that, when given a choice, the
Italian people rejected nuclear power, despite
massive false advertising by the moneylenders. It
is no accident that, as of June 2015, the only
country with any chance of escaping serfdom,
Iceland, was able to do so through a referendum,
despite massive false advertising by the
moneylenders. It is no accident that the Berlin
Philharmonic is, perhaps, the world’s leading
orchestra. What worked so well for the Ancient
Athenians, for the Iroquois Confederacy, and for
most of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, is obviously
working just as well for any country or organization
choosing to give genuine democracy a chance.
The demonstrable superiority of real democracy to
all other political systems tells us that, when given
a chance, most of us are fundamentally decent
and rational. We ought to do everything we can to
give ourselves that chance.

Selected Notes and References

1.↑ The Orwellian term for real democracy is direct
democracy. This misleading term must be avoided because it
implies that there are two legitimate variants of democracy:
direct and indirect (representative). To our ancestors,
indirect democracywould be equivalent to soundless tam-tam
or arrowless archery.
2.↑ Democratic Athens practiced slavery and excluded
women and Athenian-born residents of foreign extraction
from the privileges of citizenship. We can still derive many
lessons from Ancient Athens, with the obvious proviso that
any future real democracy will extend the full franchise of
freedom and citizenship to all adult members.
3.↑ One of the greatest tragedies of the human condition is
our reluctance to let go of long-held convictions, even when
presented with overwhelming evidence against them. We
know this from everyday observations of others, and also, if
we are honest with ourselves, from introspection. There is
also some striking experimental evidence showing that this is
so:
“Subjects were recruited to
evaluate the efficacy of a
self-contained instructional
manual. Before they could
provide the needed appraisal,
they were told, they needed to
acquire a first-hand experience
of its content by studying it and
following the instructions it
provided for about four hours. At
some point in the teaching
process, the manual introduced a
false volume formula for a
sphere–a formula which led
subjects to believe that spheres
are 50% larger than they are.
Subjects were then given an
actual sphere and asked to
determine its volume; first by
using the formula, and then by
filling the sphere with water,
transferring the water to a box,
and directly measuring the
volume of the water in the box.
The key question was: Would
subjects believe the evidence of
their senses and abandon their
prior beliefs in the formula, the
competence of the experimenter,
and the legitimacy of the entire
setup? Preliminary observations
suggested that the task was far
more difficult than expected: no
subject decisively rejected the
false formula or declined to use it
in subsequent tasks. In later
experiments various attempts
were made to ease the
conceptual transition called for
by this experiment. In one
variation all subjects held a Ph.D.
degree in a natural science and
were employed as research
scientists and professors in two
major research universities. A
special section–involving
measurements of a second
ball–was introduced and
constructed with the deliberate
aim of helping these scientists
break away from the false
formula. In another variation, the
discrepancy concerned the
circumference of an ellipse,
thereby ruling out the possibility
that earlier results were
ascribable to the difficulty of
dealing with three dimensional
concepts. But none of these
variations substantially altered the
initial results.”
We must recall this, before dismissing real democracy–or
any other challenge to our conceptions.
4.↑ After the fall of democratic Athens, the writings of the
friends of democracy were deliberately destroyed—the
oligarchs and Catholic Church understood well the subversive
power of real democracy and the heroic appeal of men such
as Thrasybulus. The oligarchic campaign against real
democracy is still very much alive, again “leading many
writers to minimize the accomplishments of . . . democracy’s
strongest advocates.” (R. J. Buck, cited here).
5.↑ Catherine Drinker Bowen, Miracle at Philadelphia, 1966.
6.↑ Paul Hoefler, Africa Speaks, 1931, p. 351.
7.↑ Steven Johnstone, Disputes and democracy, 1999.
8.↑ At times, it must be admitted, ordinary people justify
Plato’s scorn for democracy—or H. L. Mencken’s quip that
“democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of
individual ignorance.“ In Athens too, the narrow-minded,
self-destructive, bigotry of the people was at times appalling.
After the restoration of real democracy, Thrasybulus
deservedly became the “hero of the people.” And yet he
failed to convince his comrades to extend citizenship to all
the foreigners and Athenian-born descendants of foreigners
who had fought alongside them against the bloodthirsty
oligarchs. So, real democracy is far from perfect—and yet
incomparably better than anything else.
9.↑ Mill, Consideration on Representative Government, 1861.
Mill goes on to say: “But since all can not, in a community
exceeding a single small town, participate personally in any
but some very minor portions of the public business, it follows
that the ideal type of a perfect government must be
representative.” There are good reasons to believe that Mill,
had he lived now, would revise his opinion on this point. First,
for Mill, the ideal form of government is real democracy, and
representative democracy is only a second practical best.
Second, with modern technology, any country, regardless of
its size, could have daily plebiscites, if it so wished. In
extremis, it could rely on polling techniques to ascertain the
popular will. Third, given the utter subversion of
representative governments by the money lenders, Mill would
probably see that the only road to a genuine democracy is a
variation of Athenian democracy. Fourth, real democracy
would involve, Mill would probably agree, massive
decentralization: dividing any country into geographical units
of 40,000 souls or less, and severely limiting the powers of
the central government.
10.↑ Walt Whitman might have had something like this in
mind when he wrote about “the democratic wisdom
underneath, like solid ground for all” (see his poem, “The
Commonplace”).
11.↑ As far as I am aware, the first clear repudiation of the
myth of authoritarian efficiency, and the most powerful
theoretical explanation of real democracy’s greater
observable efficiency, can be found in Karl R. Popper’s The
Open Society and its Enemies. Like Mill, however, Popper
failed to notice the sharp differences between real and
representative democracies.