2.2       Sociology of Alienation

Dictatorship of Autocracy   

By their own nature, each individual aspires to the higher power to accomplish more significant 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 on how to overcome it. On the way to reaching more power, the alienated individual can easily use their abilities for accomplishing superiority over other individuals. 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 people wage a ruthless struggle for the 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 smarter 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 defined territory by forming or by re-arranging a state. They entirely independently establish the state order, laws, regulations and rules for 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 great 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 great-alienated respect and even with awe. Such a society may be highly stable and homogenous. The characteristic of the relationship between the authorities and followers is that of supplements in the impotence, which mutually brings a great alienated power that is able to accomplish impressive acts, high stability in the society and illusory conveniences. Due to the strong links, the relationship between the authorities and followers may give an impression of love; however, it is not love. Love is the product of the individual's freedom, knowledge, potency and belief in the conveniences. The relationship between authority and followers is precisely the opposite. It is characterized by great dependence, lack of knowledge and impotence and therefore, always represents a sort of a sadistic-masochistic relationship, and necessarily develops the same.    

On their route toward accomplishing significant benefits, a dictator exploits the society. Dictators take from the follower’s freedom of expressing their views, freedom of 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 unhampered material exploitation of the society, which deprives people of the benefits that arise from the products of social work.    

Authoritative power is privileged. Privileges provide an artificial confirmation of overcoming the impotence that forms a narcissistic feature of the character. A narcissistic dictator reduces the possibility of reaching the conveniences in the natural relationship between people and tries to accomplish significant benefits in greater exploitation of society. Naturally, greater exploitation cannot result in the 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 naturally 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 violent relationship toward the followers.    

If alienation in society is more significant, the followers find the conveniences in sacrificing in favour of the dictator, which inevitably develops the disease of the community. In a markedly authoritative society, a productive activity cannot bring benefits. In such a society, only illusory benefits can be accomplished; in fact, the community lives a biologically inconvenient life.    

Autocrats never find the sources of inconvenience in their own attitude regarding society. Instead, they transfer them to their subordinates, and it even more suits 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 in relationship with others. As such a presentation is false, it quickly develops intolerance concerning other societies, which creates nationalism, chauvinism, racism, fascism and other inconvenient phenomena. Such phenomena, combined with the sizeable destructive energy of the non-satisfied alienated society, form 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 powers that surround the group, which finishes catastrophically for one's own social group.    

The less social knowledge, the greater the authoritativeness it creates, and alienation is higher; the less satisfied 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 more significant. Destructiveness in society lasts until the elimination of the protagonists of the destructive needs, because it is hard for such a society to comprehend the way of its own constructive orientation.    

A society with more knowledge seeks greater freedom because it is the only way to accomplish significant benefits. It demands 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 in the alienated consciousness of the dictator equates with the view of survival.    

When the requirements of autocrats significantly oppose the nature of 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 enough gets lulled into its potency, new forces take over the control and form new rules of social behaviours that bring more significant benefits to the society.   

Democracy   

Society at a higher level of knowledge, aware of the destructiveness that the autocratic form of power brings along, forms the changes in social relations peacefully, by mutual concessions made by both the authorities and the followers. In such a society, the autocratic power accepts to provide significant freedoms and essential rights to subordinate members. In turn, the dictatorial power gets compensatory concessions in some other forms of conveniences that are proportional to the benefits of the 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 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 a consensus is established. It is sometimes difficult to reach consensus because of the highly variable interests of people: however, if it is achieved, such a democracy optimally aligns the society to its needs. It may enable the formation of a homogenous productive social orientation, stability and prosperity.    

Delegative Democracy    

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. 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 electoral base in the administrative bodies.    

The delegate decision-making system about the 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 administrative bodies that make up the legislative, executive and judicial power. In this way, socialist regulatory bodies try to form a social order that optimally meets social needs.    

Throughout history there have been several attempts to create a democratic delegate system. However, the problems emerged again concerning the difficulties in harmonizing different interests of a large number of entities with the possibilities of the society and, naturally, the need of the authorities to exercise power over the society. Generally speaking, the democratic delegate system did not manage to prove its successfulness in practice, so that authorities took control over society again.     

Representative Democracy   

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 society. The voters in elections elect the plan that offers them the most significant benefits. The party that gets the largest number of votes in the polls takes 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 most significant extent possible. The government 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 society, which is a significant advantage of the system.    

The significant deficiency of the multiparty system lies in the fact that in practice successful parties mainly follow the interests of the influential 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 come and go 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, influential rich people cunningly impose their interests also on traditionally leftist worker parties. As a result, currently there is almost no influential party that would support the 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 sin, and web an intrigue. A politician who tries to oppose the rich has merely to give up, or their career will come to an 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.    

Wealthy 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 anything to chance. The system is glorified through education, work, culture, mass media, social entertainment, sport, etc. Since the "society that does not know" is easily persuaded, 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 that what is in society is good, funny, beautiful, tasty, etc. They become what the society expects from them, and not what they need to be by their nature. Besides, they often do not have other choices because the alienated society rejects members who do not accept the adopted forms of thinking and acting. The individual passes through studious brainwashing practically 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 wealthy 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.        

***

Mankind, throughout its history, has undergone a multitude of authoritarian and democratic revolution. The interaction has improved society in two systems that exist today. The first is capitalism, which dominates the world, and then socialism, a less successful system, which still remains in a few countries. Although 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 learn some good from it. In the following sections, I will present the advantages and disadvantages of both systems.

 Back to Top