2.2 Sociology of Alienation
Dictatorship of Autocracy
By their own nature each individual aspires to greater power in order to accomplish greater benefits. The individual becomes aware of their power by comparing themselves with another individual. This act is probably alienated but has almost always existed as such and it, therefore, has to be accepted until society finds an orientation how to overcome it. On the way to reaching more power, the alienated individual can easily gain from their abilities for accomplishing superiority over another individual. Successful individuals exercise greater rights than other individuals, impose their wills upon the society or, in short, exercise power in society.
Power brings great-alienated conveniences and this is the reason why a struggle is waged among people for accomplishment of the right to power in all fields. In the history of mankind, the most blood was shed in the struggle for power. In this struggle, a stronger, more skilful, more cunning or wiser individual wins and rules the society. The power, established by force, is irrefutably autocratic and represents a dictatorship. Dictators organize the exercise of power in society on a determined territory by forming or by re-arranging a state. They fully independently establish the state order, laws, regulations and rules for regularizing the social relations. They have irrefutable legislative, executive and judiciary power in the state, and ensure implementation of their decisions by using physical force, and by proclaimed ideologies.
Dictators form or use ideologies as a means for imposing subjective visions about rules for the movements in nature. Ideologies often give an alienated answer to all questions that a frightened “society that does not know” may ask about the unknown nature. They also often determine rules for social behaviour that bring stability and convenience to society. "The society that does not know" accepts any idea that rids it of the inconvenient tension of its existing in nature. Thus ideologies bring large conveniences to the people but also they are the foundation of alienation in society.
Under the impact of ideologies, followers respect dictators on a lasting basis, with a great-alienated respect and even with awe. Such a society may be highly stable and homogenous. The characteristic of the relationship between the power and followers is that of supplements in the impotence, which mutually brings a great alienated power that is able to accomplish grandiose acts, a great stability between the society and illusory conveniences. Due to the strong links, the relationship of the power and followers may give an impression of love; however, it is not the love. Love is the product of the individual's freedom, knowledge, potency and belief in the conveniences. The relationship between the power and followers is precisely the opposite. It is characterized by great dependence, lack of knowledge and impotence and permanently represents, therefore, a sort of a sadistic-masochistic relationship, and necessarily develops the same.
On their route toward accomplishing major benefits, a dictator exploits the society. Dictators take away from the followers freedom in expressing their views, in decision-making and acting. This form of exploitation is markedly inconvenient for the followers, as it penetrates into the basic individual's essence; into what makes them an individual. That form of exploitation allows an unhampered material exploitation of the society, which is deprived of the benefits that arise from the products of social work.
Authoritative power is privileged. Privileges provide an artificial confirmation of overcoming the impotency that forms a narcissistic feature of character. A narcissistic dictator reduces the possibility of reaching the conveniences in natural relationship between people, and tries to accomplish major benefits in greater exploitation of the society. Naturally, greater exploitation cannot result in satisfaction of the needs since alienated needs are, as a general rule, insatiable. Non-satisfied alienated needs create an inconvenient tension that the individual cannot get rid of in a natural way and, therefore, the individual's organism finds an illusory satisfaction and relaxation in the perversion of the needs. In such circumstances the authoritative power finds benefits in a forced relationship toward the followers.
If alienation in society is greater, the followers find the conveniences in sacrificing in favour of the dictator, which inevitably develops the disease of the society. In a markedly authoritative society, constructive activity cannot bring benefits. In such a society, only illusory benefits can be accomplished; in fact, the society lives a biologically inconvenient life.
Autocrats never find the sources of inconvenience in their own attitude vis-à-vis the society. Instead, they assign them to subordinate members, and it is more convenient for them to pass them onto other social groups. False causes of the inconveniences and the impotence of society to accomplish benefits develop a group-narcissistic form of alienation.
By definition, such orientation glorifies one's own social group against others. As such presentation is false, it easily develops intolerance vis-à-vis other societies, which creates nationalism, chauvinism, racism, fascism and other inconvenient phenomena. Such phenomena, combined with the large destructive energy of the non-satisfied alienated society, create a programme for aggression and all social conflicts. Non-satisfied society finds illusory liberation from the inconvenient tension, and also conveniences in the superiority accomplished by destruction. As group narcissism develops to the extreme the subjectivity by which it overvalues the potency of its own group, it thus always overlooks the objective potencies that surround the group, which finishes catastrophically for the one's own social group.
The less social knowledge, the greater the authoritativeness it creates and alienation is greater; the less satisfied are the natural needs in the society, the stronger the need for destruction in society, and thus the destruction of the society and of social accomplishments is greater. Destructiveness in the society lasts until the elimination of the protagonists of the destructive needs, because it is very hard for such a society to comprehend the way of its own constructive orientation.
The society with more knowledge seeks greater freedom, because it is the only way to accomplish greater benefits. It seeks a share in the decision-making about the rules of collective activity. The dictator does not allow such requirements as they represent a loss of their vision of conveniences. Maintaining their power equates with the vision of survival in the alienated consciousness of the dictator.
When the requirements of autocrats significantly oppose the nature of a society, tension develops in the society that forces it to rebel against the power, because there are limits that "the society that knows" cannot stand. It then directs its energy towards toppling the authoritative ruling class and its ideologies. If new forces sufficiently develop in the society, and the power sufficiently gets lulled into its potency, new forces take over the power and form new rules of social behaviours that bring greater benefits to the society.
A society at a higher level of knowledge, aware of the destructiveness that the autocratic form of power brings along, forms peacefully the changes in social relations, by concessions mutually made by both the authorities and the followers. In such a society, the autocratic power accepts to provide major freedoms and major rights to subordinate members. In turn, the autocratic power gets compensatory concessions in some other forms of conveniences that are proportional to the benefits of ruling.
The monarchies in Europe that renounced their absolute power in favour of parliamentary democracy have retained their privileged status, titles, holdings, and often exert an impact on the creation of state policies. The monarchs who have not voluntarily renounced their power to parliamentary democracy, have lost their privileges, holdings and, frequently, even their lives.
Since the Ancient times, society has become aware of the importance of public participation in decision-making processes regarding issues of common interest. This awareness initiated the development of the roots of democracy. An ideal form of democracy is carried out by a mutual agreement of all community members on the rules for collective action until consensus is established. It is sometimes very hard to reach consensus because of highly variable interests of people: however, if it is reached, such a democracy optimally aligns the society to its needs. It may enable the formation of a homogenous productive social orientation, stability and prosperity.
However, in larger social communities such as states, an agreement on equal footing about the collective action cannot be achieved because of the large number of entities with a large number of different needs. Therefore, in socialist systems delegates are formed that represent the society in setting up the rules of social behaviour. The society elects the delegates through elections estimating the degree of their contribution to the development of society. The delegates are bound to represent the interests of their elective constituencies in the administration bodies.
The delegate decision-making system about joint activity of the society requires a broad discussion in each segment of the society where decisions are made and then, through delegates, conveyed to the administration bodies that make up the legislative, executive and judicial power. Socialist administrative bodies try in this way to form a social order that optimally meets the social needs.
There have been throughout history, several attempts to create a democratic delegate system. However, the problems emerged again with regard to the difficulties in harmonizing different interests of a large number of entities with the possibilities of the society and, naturally, the need of the people to exercise power over the society. Generally speaking, the democratic delegate system did not manage to prove its successfulness in practice.
This problem is resolved somewhat satisfactorily through representative democracy. In such a democracy, the people do not participate directly in decision-making processes, but choose a party whose programs reflect their interests most. The freely organized individuals in the parties form the programmes of social relations and proclaim them to the society. The voters in elections elect the programme that offers them the largest benefits. The party that gets the largest number of votes in the elections takes over the power in the society. Such election of power is well known today by the name Liberal democracy.
The power in a multiparty system tries to set and carry out the rules for social activity in the manner that suits the society to the largest extent possible. The management that fails to meet the needs of the society loses its confidence and, consequently, the power in the next election. The multiparty form of power ensures a peaceful change of authorities, without destructive phenomena in the society, which is a great advantage of the system.
The great deficiency of the multiparty system lies in the fact that successful parties mainly follow in practice the interests of the powerful people. In the developed world, big donors finance all influential parties and thus influence the decision-making within the parties. Politicians leading the political parties are transitory and are, therefore, highly inclined to corruption. It is not necessarily the money that is in question; they may be corrupted by an attractive work post, career, earning or by friendship only. In an immoral society the corruption can take the form of recognition and in such circumstances there is almost nobody that is able to oppose it. In this way, powerful rich people cunningly impose their interests also on traditionally leftist workers parties. As a result, there is currently almost no influential party that would support interests of the poor workers deprived of their rights.
If some politician tries to oppose the interests of the rich, they encounter obstacles everywhere. All allegedly free mass media in the developed world are controlled by very well organized owners and thus advocate their interests. Such mass media will accuse the disobedient politician of not doing their job well, will find some sort of vice, and web an intrigue. A politician who tries to oppose the rich has simply to give up, or their career will come to end. Regardless of the public interest involved in the programmes of influential parties, they will in the end pursue the policy in favour of the rich.
Rich owners of capital have created, with the help of political parties, a political system where they have control over the society. They try to bring under their control all influential factors in the society, making it their best effort not to leave things to any chance. The system is glorified through education, work, culture, mass media, social entertainment, sport. Since the "society that does not know" is suggestible, it accepts the suggestive alienated determinations of such a system.
In such a system the person as an individual does not have another choice other than to accept the alienated rules that determine their activities and opinions. Under the influence of enormous subtle propaganda they even accept what is in society good, funny, nice, tasty. They become what the society expects from them, and not what they by their nature need to be. Besides, they often do not have other choices because the alienated society rejects each member who does not accept the adopted forms of thinking and acting. The individual practically passes through a studious brain washing throughout their lifetime and, in the end, they do not critique the correctness of such a system. Such an individual elects, as a general rule, the parties that support the programmes of the rich owners of capital and the circle of the democratic farce thus closes. Although the liberal democracy oscillates between poor and no democracy, it nevertheless represents the most successful form of democracy today.
its history, has undergone
a multitude of authoritarian and
democratic revolution. The
improved society in
two systems that exist today.
The first of which is capitalism, which dominates
the world in states around the
world, and then socialism, a less
successful system, which still remains in a few
capitalism is more successful than
socialism, it is still far
from a good system.
On the other hand, although
socialism is a less successful
system, we can
some good from it. In the
following sections, I will
present the advantages and
disadvantages of both systems.
Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs
November 13, 2013