What do you think?
Rate this book
The Problem of Democracy
The Problem of Democracy is the first of Alain de Benoist's book-length political works to appear in English. It presents the complexity and depth which underlies all of de Benoist’s work and which is often neglected by those who seek to dismiss him by oversimplifying or distorting his arguments. De Benoist shows how democracy is, contrary to what some critics have claimed, something which has been a part of our civilisation from the beginning. The problem, he says, is not the notion of democracy in itself, but rather the current understanding of the term which, rather than empowering the individual, reduces him to little more than a cog in a machine over which he has no control, and in which the direction is set by politicians with little genuine accountability. As an alternative, de Benoist proposes that effective democracy would mean a return to an understanding of citizenship as being tied to one’s belonging to a specific political community based on shared values and common historical ties, while doing away with the liberal notion of the delegation of sovereignty to elected representatives. The type of government which is called for is thus a return to the form of government widely understood in Antiquity, but which now seems to us to be a revolutionary notion. This is the first in a series of volumes by Alain de Benoist which will be translated and published by Arktos Media.
104 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1986
34 people are currently reading
811 people want to read
About the author
Alain de Benoist
190 books188 followers Depuis plus de trente ans, Alain de Benoist poursuit méthodiquement un travail d'analyse et de réflexion dans le domaine des idées. Ecrivain, journaliste, essayiste, conférencier, philosophe, il a publié plus de 50 livres et plus de 3000 articles, aujourd'hui traduits dans une quinzaine de langues différentes.
Ses domaines de prédilection sont la philosophie politique et l'histoire des idées, mais il est aussi l'auteur de nombreux travaux portant notamment sur l'archéologie, les traditions populaires, l'histoire des religions ou les sciences de la vie.
Indifférent aux modes idéologiques, récusant toute forme d'intolérance et d'extrémisme, Alain de Benoist ne cultive pas non plus une quelconque nostalgie «restaurationniste». Lorsqu'il critique la modernité, ce n'est pas au nom d'un passé idéalisé, mais en se préoccupant avant tout des problématiques postmodernes. Les axes principaux de sa pensée sont au nombre de quatre : 1) la critique conjointe de l'individuo-universalisme et du nationalisme (ou de l'ethnocentrisme) en tant que catégories relevant l'une et l'autre de la métaphysique de la subjectivité ; 2) la déconstruction systématique de la raison marchande, de l'axiomatique de l'intérêt et des multiples emprises de la Forme-Capital, dont le déploiement planétaire constitue à ses yeux la menace principale qui pèse aujourd'hui sur le monde ; 3) la lutte en faveur des autonomies locales, liée à la défense des différences et des identités collectives ; 4) une nette prise de position en faveur d'un fédéralisme intégral, fondé sur le principe de subsidiarité et la généralisation à partir de la base des pratiques de la démocratie participative.
Alors que son oeuvre est connue et reconnue dans un nombre grandissant de pays, Alain de Benoist reste largement ostracisé en France, où l'on se borne trop souvent à associer son nom à celui de la « Nouvelle Droite », expression dans laquelle il ne s'est jamais véritablement reconnu.
Biography in English at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_d...
Ses domaines de prédilection sont la philosophie politique et l'histoire des idées, mais il est aussi l'auteur de nombreux travaux portant notamment sur l'archéologie, les traditions populaires, l'histoire des religions ou les sciences de la vie.
Indifférent aux modes idéologiques, récusant toute forme d'intolérance et d'extrémisme, Alain de Benoist ne cultive pas non plus une quelconque nostalgie «restaurationniste». Lorsqu'il critique la modernité, ce n'est pas au nom d'un passé idéalisé, mais en se préoccupant avant tout des problématiques postmodernes. Les axes principaux de sa pensée sont au nombre de quatre : 1) la critique conjointe de l'individuo-universalisme et du nationalisme (ou de l'ethnocentrisme) en tant que catégories relevant l'une et l'autre de la métaphysique de la subjectivité ; 2) la déconstruction systématique de la raison marchande, de l'axiomatique de l'intérêt et des multiples emprises de la Forme-Capital, dont le déploiement planétaire constitue à ses yeux la menace principale qui pèse aujourd'hui sur le monde ; 3) la lutte en faveur des autonomies locales, liée à la défense des différences et des identités collectives ; 4) une nette prise de position en faveur d'un fédéralisme intégral, fondé sur le principe de subsidiarité et la généralisation à partir de la base des pratiques de la démocratie participative.
Alors que son oeuvre est connue et reconnue dans un nombre grandissant de pays, Alain de Benoist reste largement ostracisé en France, où l'on se borne trop souvent à associer son nom à celui de la « Nouvelle Droite », expression dans laquelle il ne s'est jamais véritablement reconnu.
Biography in English at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_d...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 29, 2019
This book seeks to cut through the quasi-religious tone surrounding ‘democracy’ and examine what the word actually means.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, everyone has wanted to be seen as ‘democratic’. Stalin’s Constitution of 1936 even proclaimed the USSR a ‘democracy’.
This wasn’t always the case, though, even among leftists. None of the major French revolutionaries used the term, except Robespierre towards the end of the terror (when it didn’t do him much good!).
‘Democracy’ wasn’t a household word until Toqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’ (1830s). Before that, writers who believed in ‘equality’, such as Rousseau, were admirers of Sparta rather than democratic Athens (ironically, the man who made Athenian democracy famous through the centuries, Pericles, exercised a quasi-royal authority over his city…)
Athenian democracy, in any case, was very different to the modern beast. It was linked to tribe and to place, and thus was very much a blood and soil ideology. Also, the Athenians saw equality (before the law) as a means to democracy, not as something valuable in its own right.
Some thinkers, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, have seen democracy as ‘primitive’, and monarchy as more highly evolved. Alain de Benoist thinks both views, and ‘linear’ views in general, are wrong. In ancient Europe, kings themselves were often elected by popular assembly. Only in the 1100s were most European monarchies hereditary. The vast majority of historical regimes had mixed systems of government.
The working classes were often anti-democratic, as in Medici Florence - because the middle class who favoured democracy would give them less rights than the princes did.
Alain de Benoist thinks the best state is the one that gives the best form to the values of a specific people. (By ‘people’ he means something closer to the French word ‘peuple’ or the German word ‘Volk’, i.e. an ethnic group).
The modern liberal democracy actually distrusts the folk, but de Benoist on the contrary thinks that where there is no folk and only individuals, there can be no democracy.
In chapter IV, de Benoist gives reasons why ‘liberal democracy’ or ‘formal democracy’ (our current system) is indeed a farce.
Among other reasons:
- People elect representatives, but these must delegate their tasks to unelected officials (as portrayed in the classic 1980s satire ‘Yes Minister’).
- Party ‘brands’ mean that candidates aren’t elected for their personal qualities.
- Lukewarm voters are given the same weight as resolute ones.
And so on…
De Benoist’s solution is something he calls ‘Organic Democracy’, involving lots of referenda and plebiscites. This would be folkish, based on fraternity rather than liberty and equality, and thus more similar to the ancient Athenian democracy (something he doesn’t mention, however, is that the democratic faction in Athens fanatically pursued a ruinous fratricidal war with Sparta, whereas the artistocratic faction wanted peace).
His book was written in 1985, and I think things are too far gone now for de Benoist’s folkish democracy to put things right. It could never be implemented under the currect system, anyway. The closest equivalent, populism, has had little real success against the entrenched deep state.
Something more drastic will be required…
But if the crisis Western Man now faces is overcome, a future system of government will evolve organically, and will doubtless contain mixed elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy, just as it has throughout our history.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, everyone has wanted to be seen as ‘democratic’. Stalin’s Constitution of 1936 even proclaimed the USSR a ‘democracy’.
This wasn’t always the case, though, even among leftists. None of the major French revolutionaries used the term, except Robespierre towards the end of the terror (when it didn’t do him much good!).
‘Democracy’ wasn’t a household word until Toqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’ (1830s). Before that, writers who believed in ‘equality’, such as Rousseau, were admirers of Sparta rather than democratic Athens (ironically, the man who made Athenian democracy famous through the centuries, Pericles, exercised a quasi-royal authority over his city…)
Athenian democracy, in any case, was very different to the modern beast. It was linked to tribe and to place, and thus was very much a blood and soil ideology. Also, the Athenians saw equality (before the law) as a means to democracy, not as something valuable in its own right.
Some thinkers, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, have seen democracy as ‘primitive’, and monarchy as more highly evolved. Alain de Benoist thinks both views, and ‘linear’ views in general, are wrong. In ancient Europe, kings themselves were often elected by popular assembly. Only in the 1100s were most European monarchies hereditary. The vast majority of historical regimes had mixed systems of government.
The working classes were often anti-democratic, as in Medici Florence - because the middle class who favoured democracy would give them less rights than the princes did.
Alain de Benoist thinks the best state is the one that gives the best form to the values of a specific people. (By ‘people’ he means something closer to the French word ‘peuple’ or the German word ‘Volk’, i.e. an ethnic group).
The modern liberal democracy actually distrusts the folk, but de Benoist on the contrary thinks that where there is no folk and only individuals, there can be no democracy.
In chapter IV, de Benoist gives reasons why ‘liberal democracy’ or ‘formal democracy’ (our current system) is indeed a farce.
Among other reasons:
- People elect representatives, but these must delegate their tasks to unelected officials (as portrayed in the classic 1980s satire ‘Yes Minister’).
- Party ‘brands’ mean that candidates aren’t elected for their personal qualities.
- Lukewarm voters are given the same weight as resolute ones.
And so on…
De Benoist’s solution is something he calls ‘Organic Democracy’, involving lots of referenda and plebiscites. This would be folkish, based on fraternity rather than liberty and equality, and thus more similar to the ancient Athenian democracy (something he doesn’t mention, however, is that the democratic faction in Athens fanatically pursued a ruinous fratricidal war with Sparta, whereas the artistocratic faction wanted peace).
His book was written in 1985, and I think things are too far gone now for de Benoist’s folkish democracy to put things right. It could never be implemented under the currect system, anyway. The closest equivalent, populism, has had little real success against the entrenched deep state.
Something more drastic will be required…
But if the crisis Western Man now faces is overcome, a future system of government will evolve organically, and will doubtless contain mixed elements of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy, just as it has throughout our history.
April 3, 2024
“La démocratie c'est la révolution couchée, et qui fait ses besoins dans ses draps”
—Léon Daudet
حقیقت این است که در دموکراسی اصل اساسی نه اکثریت مردم است و نه آرای مردم. نه انتخابات است و نه وکیل فرستادن به مجلس. اساس اصل مشارکت است. مشارکت به معنای شرکت جستن است و غرض از آن این است که فرد به تجربۀ شخصی، خود را عضوی از جماعت و جزئی از کل بداند و نقش فعالی را که در اینگونه تعلق و وابستگی مستتر است به درستی ارائه کند
مشارکت سیاسی فقط محدود به امر مشارکت در انتخابات نیست. باید مردم هرجا که دستشان میرسد بتوانند تصمیم بگیرند و هر دفعه که نمیتوانند، باید قادر باشند موافقت یا عدم موافقتشان را اظهار کنند
برخلاف دموکراسی لیبرال و شکلهای ظالمانۀ «دموکراسی تودهای» باید به تصوری از حاکمیت مردم بازگشت که مبنای آن تاریخ مملکت و دموکراسی واقعی باشد
دموکراسی باید بنای خود را نه بر پایۀ حقوق فردی افراد بیریشه بلکه بر مبنای اصل شهروندی بگذارد. اصل شهروندی تعلق فرد را به مردم، یعنی به یک فرهنگ، یک سرنوشت و وحدت سیاسی که در داخل آن سرنوشت مردم شکل میگیرد، تصدیق و ابرام میکند
به یاد بزرگ نادرزاد که این کتاب را به فارسی ترجمه کرد، ولو کسی نخواندش
Image: Frédéric Sorrieu, Universal male suffrage given by Ledru-Rollin, 1850.
December 30, 2024
Alain de Benoist võrdleb oma raamatus antiikset kreeka demokraatiat, mida ta peab tõeliseks demokraatia vormiks kus tähtsaim on kodanik kui ''inimene'', tänapäeva liberaalse demokraatiaga (mida ta peab üleüldse vastuoluliseks sõnapaariks). Raamatus tuleb välja asjaolu, et demokraatia kui rahva võim, rahva võimalus kaasa rääkida poliitikas, on Euroopa tsivilisatsiooni algupäevadest saadik kuni Prantsuse revolutsioonini mingil või teisel vormil eksisteerinud.
Kokkuvõtteks leiab Alain de Benoist, et orgaaniline demokraatia (mis baseerub etnosel ehk rahvusel või rassil ning seega ka kodakondsusel) on ainukene tõeline demokraatia vorm, mis teeniks tõeliselt rahva huve või kehastaks endas seda Prantsuse revolutsiooni ideaali nagu vendlus kui teised 'demokraatia vormid' (Liberaalne demokraatia ja 'populaarne demokraatia' ehk otsedemokraatia pmst) kuna orgaaniline demokraatia põhineb rahvuslikul ja rahva suveräniteedil. Seega Alain de Benoist pakub alternatiivina "üks mees, üks hääl", "üks kodanik, üks hääl".
Alain De Benoist peab liberaalset demokraatiat farsiks ja vastuoluliseks kuna nende definitsioonide järgi on nad juba enda vastandid, üks on rahva suveräniteet, teine põhineb üksikisiku õigustel.
Üleüldse oli väga hea lugemine, väike raamat ja hea tekstiga. Kindlasti soovitan.
Vabandan, kui minu ülevaates on grammatikavigu, ma ei tahtnud palju 'spoilida' ja kirjutasin selle kell 3 öösel.
Kokkuvõtteks leiab Alain de Benoist, et orgaaniline demokraatia (mis baseerub etnosel ehk rahvusel või rassil ning seega ka kodakondsusel) on ainukene tõeline demokraatia vorm, mis teeniks tõeliselt rahva huve või kehastaks endas seda Prantsuse revolutsiooni ideaali nagu vendlus kui teised 'demokraatia vormid' (Liberaalne demokraatia ja 'populaarne demokraatia' ehk otsedemokraatia pmst) kuna orgaaniline demokraatia põhineb rahvuslikul ja rahva suveräniteedil. Seega Alain de Benoist pakub alternatiivina "üks mees, üks hääl", "üks kodanik, üks hääl".
Alain De Benoist peab liberaalset demokraatiat farsiks ja vastuoluliseks kuna nende definitsioonide järgi on nad juba enda vastandid, üks on rahva suveräniteet, teine põhineb üksikisiku õigustel.
Üleüldse oli väga hea lugemine, väike raamat ja hea tekstiga. Kindlasti soovitan.
Vabandan, kui minu ülevaates on grammatikavigu, ma ei tahtnud palju 'spoilida' ja kirjutasin selle kell 3 öösel.
July 3, 2025
A short and tight essay on the concept, history and politics of individualistic egalitarian democracy and the fundamental problems it fosters. Alain de Benoist is a founding member of the far-right Nouvelle Droite, a movement I've been interested in for a while, mostly through this author and Guillaume Faye. This essay can be read as an interesting diagnostic of the failures of the current system of democracy.
His argument isn't against democracy tho. He's advocating for a more "organic" version of it. The best parts of the book are when he traces the historical conceptions of democracy (and liberty) to situate how far the current, almost reverential view of democracy is distorted. The examples of ancient democracies, mostly mixed democracies (involving aristocracy or monarchy as well) were super fascinating, especially the ones in Scandinavia, in Iceland and ofc the examples of Rome.
De Benoist even relays how the authors and organizers of the French Revolution, like Rousseau and Robespierre, advocated for a political model that involved a mixed type of democracy, many times even criticizing democracy as a polity. He shows the right and left divide on this concept has been quite a recent issue and de Maistre and Carlyle would've agreed with the early leftist critiques of democracy.
An interesting, short read. Could've been more extensive.
"When Aristotle defines man as a 'political animal' and a social being, when he claims that the city precedes the individual and that only within society can the individual achieve his potential, what he is suggesting is that man should not be detached from his role as a citizen as a person living in an organised community, a polis or civitas. This view stands in contrast to the concept of modern liberalism, which assumes that the individual precedes society and that man, qua individual, is at once something more than just a citizen."
"Direct democracy need not be associated with a limited number of citizens. It is rather primarily associated with a relatively homogeneous people conscious of what makes it such. The effective functioning of Greek democracy, as well as of Icelandic democracy, was first and foremost the result of cultural cohesion and a clear sense of shared belonging. The closer the members of a community are to one another, the more likely they are to have common sentiments, identical values, and the same way of viewing the world and social ties, and the easier it is for them to make collective decisions concerning the common good without the need for any form of mediation. Modern societies, in contrast, require a range of intermediaries, as they have ceased to be places of collectively lived meaning. The aspirations expressed in these democracies spring from contradictory value systems that can no longer be reconciled through any unified decision. Since Benjamin Constant, it has been possible to measure the extent to which the notion of liberty has changed under the influence of the individualistic egalitarian ideology. Returning to a Greek concept of democracy, therefore, does not mean nurturing the constantly frustrated hope of 'face to face' social transparency. Rather, it means re-appropriating - and adapting to the modern world a notion of the people and of community that has been eclipsed by two thousand years of egalitarianism, rationalism and the exaltation of the rootless individual."
"The principles of democracy have been criticised in the past both by Left wing and Right wing authors.....democracy is the reign of division, instability, and incompetence par excellence the dictatorship of numbers and mediocrity. The party system, it is argued, threatens national unity by engendering a state of 'endemic civil war'."
His argument isn't against democracy tho. He's advocating for a more "organic" version of it. The best parts of the book are when he traces the historical conceptions of democracy (and liberty) to situate how far the current, almost reverential view of democracy is distorted. The examples of ancient democracies, mostly mixed democracies (involving aristocracy or monarchy as well) were super fascinating, especially the ones in Scandinavia, in Iceland and ofc the examples of Rome.
De Benoist even relays how the authors and organizers of the French Revolution, like Rousseau and Robespierre, advocated for a political model that involved a mixed type of democracy, many times even criticizing democracy as a polity. He shows the right and left divide on this concept has been quite a recent issue and de Maistre and Carlyle would've agreed with the early leftist critiques of democracy.
An interesting, short read. Could've been more extensive.
"When Aristotle defines man as a 'political animal' and a social being, when he claims that the city precedes the individual and that only within society can the individual achieve his potential, what he is suggesting is that man should not be detached from his role as a citizen as a person living in an organised community, a polis or civitas. This view stands in contrast to the concept of modern liberalism, which assumes that the individual precedes society and that man, qua individual, is at once something more than just a citizen."
"Direct democracy need not be associated with a limited number of citizens. It is rather primarily associated with a relatively homogeneous people conscious of what makes it such. The effective functioning of Greek democracy, as well as of Icelandic democracy, was first and foremost the result of cultural cohesion and a clear sense of shared belonging. The closer the members of a community are to one another, the more likely they are to have common sentiments, identical values, and the same way of viewing the world and social ties, and the easier it is for them to make collective decisions concerning the common good without the need for any form of mediation. Modern societies, in contrast, require a range of intermediaries, as they have ceased to be places of collectively lived meaning. The aspirations expressed in these democracies spring from contradictory value systems that can no longer be reconciled through any unified decision. Since Benjamin Constant, it has been possible to measure the extent to which the notion of liberty has changed under the influence of the individualistic egalitarian ideology. Returning to a Greek concept of democracy, therefore, does not mean nurturing the constantly frustrated hope of 'face to face' social transparency. Rather, it means re-appropriating - and adapting to the modern world a notion of the people and of community that has been eclipsed by two thousand years of egalitarianism, rationalism and the exaltation of the rootless individual."
"The principles of democracy have been criticised in the past both by Left wing and Right wing authors.....democracy is the reign of division, instability, and incompetence par excellence the dictatorship of numbers and mediocrity. The party system, it is argued, threatens national unity by engendering a state of 'endemic civil war'."
March 25, 2011
I would recommend The Problem of Democracy despite my disagreeing with the thesis. Alain de Benoist, deconstructs, defines and criticizes modern conceptions of democracy and liberalism, then describes and defines ancient democracy and how it could be applied today (which has to be different given the vast difference in population among other things). One thing I liked a lot was how he addresses many of the criticisms of democracy, mass rule, liberalism etc., even offering many good quotes on the matter. Even though he goes on to defend democracy and attempts to refute the claims of many great thinkers and individuals on the matter (which he fails at badly in my opinion) it is still a good book. It is especially worth it for ammunition when arguing with others in the field of (or interested in) Political Science or in academia in general.
I give it three stars because I do not think it offers a convincing argument for (de Benoist's) democracy, however, since the majority of the book is a critical meditation on the concepts of liberalism and modern democracy (and even arguably de Benoist's), it is still very much worth reading.
As a side note, I must mention the editing was excellent and added a lot to the book. You can tell the editor spent a lot of time perfecting this book. There are numerous clarifying notes concerning things anglophone readers would miss.
I give it three stars because I do not think it offers a convincing argument for (de Benoist's) democracy, however, since the majority of the book is a critical meditation on the concepts of liberalism and modern democracy (and even arguably de Benoist's), it is still very much worth reading.
As a side note, I must mention the editing was excellent and added a lot to the book. You can tell the editor spent a lot of time perfecting this book. There are numerous clarifying notes concerning things anglophone readers would miss.
Read
August 16, 2021"In theory, therefore, democracy should not be regarded as an anti-elitist-system. It is not elites which it is opposed to, but the way in which these are selected. What regime, after all, does not seek quality in government? If democracy charmed so many spirits, this is partly because it was seen as the best means for organising elite turnover. All the authors for whom democracy implies greater 'virtue' and quality insist on the idea that elites are crucial for its proper functioning.
[...]
To this a moral argument may be added: there is little merit in granting freedom of expression to those whose opinions hardly differ from one's own. A similar attitude soon becomes an excuse to grant freedoms only to people of whom we are sure beforehand will not make 'ill' use of them. It means believing that the ruling system is so excellent that once it has been established, we have the right to proscribe all possibilities of choosing a different one. All radical dissent - is thus banned. But can we still call this a democracy?"
[...]
To this a moral argument may be added: there is little merit in granting freedom of expression to those whose opinions hardly differ from one's own. A similar attitude soon becomes an excuse to grant freedoms only to people of whom we are sure beforehand will not make 'ill' use of them. It means believing that the ruling system is so excellent that once it has been established, we have the right to proscribe all possibilities of choosing a different one. All radical dissent - is thus banned. But can we still call this a democracy?"
August 15, 2024
De Benoist seems unusual for being associated with the radical right and being pro democracy but what most critics talk about is liberal or representative democracy which if you look at its development came from concessions from sovereignty which over time universal suffrage was grafted onto. At least some of these principles like representative government and due process have late Roman, Christian, and Medieval origins. De Benoist comes from a pagan and Heideggerian perspective and largely criticizes liberalism as an outgrowth of Christianity so one can understand where he is coming from.
Democracy as understood by Aristotle and Plato up to Montesquieu was direct and often by lot not primarily election which originally was for magistrates not to delegate sovereignty which was for aristocratic government. De Benoist also is favorable towards Rousseau who criticized enlightenment assumptions and looked back to classical republics to develop an organic conception of a people which admitted of natural inequality between persons but political equality among a people which is properly called ethnocracy. With this conception governments are not based on universal rights or abstract equality since people must have a shared identity distinct from natural law. This kind of direct democracy can only work on a decentralized basis in a homogenous society with a virtuous people though. De Benoist’s description of democracy comes across more as a kind of ethnonationalism than what we’re familiar with although nationalism is itself a more modern phenomenon.
Democracy as understood by Aristotle and Plato up to Montesquieu was direct and often by lot not primarily election which originally was for magistrates not to delegate sovereignty which was for aristocratic government. De Benoist also is favorable towards Rousseau who criticized enlightenment assumptions and looked back to classical republics to develop an organic conception of a people which admitted of natural inequality between persons but political equality among a people which is properly called ethnocracy. With this conception governments are not based on universal rights or abstract equality since people must have a shared identity distinct from natural law. This kind of direct democracy can only work on a decentralized basis in a homogenous society with a virtuous people though. De Benoist’s description of democracy comes across more as a kind of ethnonationalism than what we’re familiar with although nationalism is itself a more modern phenomenon.
July 26, 2014
The analysis of the concept of democracy here is very thoughtful. I would profit from reading it again. It's his best work available in English, I think.
(but who the hell approved that cover design?!)
(but who the hell approved that cover design?!)
July 28, 2024
Demokracie. Grandiózní, že? Tímhle velkolepým termínem se tu už staletí ohání kdejaký politik ve sněmovně, občan na ulici, diktátor při projevu, nebo opilec ve škarpě - jenže ona ta definice není tak snadná jako vás to naučili papouškovat na základce pár větami z osnov a jak si to lidi malují ve své hlavě. Málokdo ví, co to vlastně znamená. Ale každý to používá jako jasně formulovaný pojem. Stejně jako manželství, které mimochodem taky bylo "znormováno" do své podoby za určitým důvodem, za vším vlastně můžete hledat nějakou politickou motivaci někoho, kdo si chce namastit kapsu (třeba migranti, jejichž příliv existuje jen protože platit cizincům, kteří vezmou cokoliv za méně, je lepší, než zvýšit plat řadovým občanům-dělníkům, ale jakou to pak bude mít budoucnost pro jeho zemi, to už je nezajímá). Vždycky, když vidím lidi, jak proti něčemu protestují nebo vyjadřují vehementně svůj názor, je jejich protest povrchně zaměřen jen na kritiku současné vlády, na kterou jsou nasraní za to, že něco zdražila a "neudělali jak slibovali" / "mám se teď hůř, než jsem se měl loni" (což je, jak zjistíte po přečtení tohohle, tak nějak jediná možnost toho, co vláda stejně musí udělat). Linie mezi oligarchií a demokracií je mnohdy tenčí, než si myslíte a stejně tak to, co se vlastně za demokracii, nebo její určitou formu a praktiky může považovat. A liberalismus, který si s pojmem demokracie řada lidí zaměňuje jako synonymum nakonec vlastně může být tím, co demokracii ničí. A to říkám jen "to jasné". Protože, víc než cokoliv (a že mě tahle kniha upřímně bavila), tak hlavně mě přiměla přemýšlet nad tím, jak málo obecně člověk ví v rámci čehokoliv ve společnosti, v životě. Máme tu zástupy idiotů, co říkají definice, protože je jejich pohled na realitu zjednodušen. Další dobrý příklad: "Bůh je chlápek v oblacích" - "Letěl jsem letadlem a v oblacích jsem nikoho neviděl, takže vím, že něco jako Bůh neexistuje" (Ne, kámo, ty ani nedokážeš tu ideu Boha definovat, v tom je ten problém). Ano, věci jsou často definovány ne proto, že by tak ve skutečnosti byly, ale protože to je nejjednodušší možný způsob, jak to někomu vysvětlit, aby byl schopen to NĚJAK pochopit. Láska. Víra. Život. Ve všech oblastech je toho řada, co člověk nechápe, protože žije život "zjednodušených definicí", který mu umožňuje pak mít sebevědomí říct "Jdu protestovat proti vládě, protože mi zdražili rohlíky, jsou to svině, co jen hrabou, bla bla bla, ten je šmejd, že může za tohle, tenhle šmejd, že může za tohle", což je ekvivalent malého dítěte, které se snaží prosadit názor, který je zakořeněný v nějaké umělé myšlence, nebo idealizaci něčeho. Bohužel v téhle pozici je většina lidí, chytí se nejjednodušší definice, aby ji mohli zasadit do své "reality", do své "myšlenky" (jsem naštvanej... co s tím udělám? Obviním někoho). Jenže Svět, je tisíckrát komplikovanější, než tohle. Má spousty pohyblivých částic, je krásný i hnusný současně. A jestli je něco, pak ne snadno definovatelný. Jestli si chcete lhát a žít ve své příjemné bublině a prochází vám to... no, neměli byste. Kdo by nechtěl, koneckonců i víra je pro spoustu lidí jakýsi záchranný kruh před hrůzami světa. Pointa je v tom, že kniha jako tahle by se dala napsat na řadu témat. Obecné vědomí lidí je ale někde úplně jinde. Je velmi primitivní a povrchové. Jak komplikované jsou mechanismy, které se okolo nás denně dějí. Jak se vše musí zjednodušovat na úroveň blbců, i třeba v rámci spirituality, protože lidi jsou prostě fakt banda tupých opic, která by to jinak nepobrala a je složitý u nich prosadit ideu, co má smysl, protože by to vyžadovalo kolektivní snahu, ale to jde proti struktuře společnosti, respektive, její chod nedává moc skutečného prostoru (to je ten falešný vstřícný úsměv západního myšlení). Nikoho nezajímá nic víc, než si nějak "splnit nutné" a pak si jen užívat... což ale nikoho nikam nedovede. Reakce je pak jen frustrace, která nemá opodstatnění v realitě. Tahle kniha nejenže demokracii rozebírá v její pravé podobě a zasazuje ji v rámci hutného množství poznámek pod čarou a citací do jakéhosi rámce, který vám pomůže pochopit, že tohle není hraní na písečku, ale i komplexní problém, ale třeba vám pomůže pochopit i proč se řada věcí dnes děje, jak se děje. Text je nahuštěný ale na necelých 150 stranách i velmi k věci, čehož si cením. Athény a Island - jedny z nejstarších demokracií. Taky záleží na tom, jak komunitní je jejich zřízení, menší antická města-státy se nedají srovnávat s dnešním plošným pojetím demokracie. Je to hodně o nuancích a kontextu. Ač je kniha staršího data (1985), skoro to nejde na jejím poselství znát, protože řeší velmi starý, globální pojem... a v tomhle vydání je i tak pořád doplněna o dva další texty, z let 2007 a 2011. Sol Noctis si mě začíná pomalu získávat. Už když jsem v době vydání viděl tu obálku, věděl jsem, že tenhle text mě volá.
October 29, 2023
I somewhat identify as an anarchosyndicalist, but I often engage with material from all over the political spectrum. I found this book to capture the many problems of democracy, though there were some I felt he missed. In fact, I think I agree with all of his contentions. I've now added to my list, as I've never been a fan of democracy. As he suggests, it's more of a religion than a decent form of government.
I only give this ⭐⭐⭐ because as strong as the critique was, his proposal for the replacement was an admixture of weak tea and magical thinking. I won't spoil the ending, but he tipped his solution hand early and summarised it in the final chapter. I can understand his sentiment, but it exhibits a complete lack of understanding system thinking, social dynamics, and how complex organisms function. I'd have given it ⭐⭐⭐⭐ if he had skipped his solution.
I only give this ⭐⭐⭐ because as strong as the critique was, his proposal for the replacement was an admixture of weak tea and magical thinking. I won't spoil the ending, but he tipped his solution hand early and summarised it in the final chapter. I can understand his sentiment, but it exhibits a complete lack of understanding system thinking, social dynamics, and how complex organisms function. I'd have given it ⭐⭐⭐⭐ if he had skipped his solution.
August 3, 2017
This tome reminds me of The Feminine Mystique. Why? Because like Friedan's book, de Benoist's book rolls out the issues superbly. Nonetheless, he doesn't have the answers. I found myself agreeing with the issues, and then disagreeing with what he thinks are the remedies for our excessive ideas on how democracies need to operate.
Read the book to get a grasp of what he suggests are the issues with democracy, equality and the post enlightenment world. If you find yourself agreeing with what he suggests are the problems, then read a few other books that suggest a variety of "fixes."
I will write my own book on what I think needs to be done. But I, like Dugan, will only suggest solutions, based on historical models.
Read the book to get a grasp of what he suggests are the issues with democracy, equality and the post enlightenment world. If you find yourself agreeing with what he suggests are the problems, then read a few other books that suggest a variety of "fixes."
I will write my own book on what I think needs to be done. But I, like Dugan, will only suggest solutions, based on historical models.
December 21, 2018
An eloquently written academic book that criticises, yes, democracy.
The author draws sources from several historical figures that helped philosophise the ideology that we today have all been taught to support, defend and love.
Some very good arguments are made against democracy, including internal contradictions and it’s unbalanced relationship with ‘liberalism’.
The author draws sources from several historical figures that helped philosophise the ideology that we today have all been taught to support, defend and love.
Some very good arguments are made against democracy, including internal contradictions and it’s unbalanced relationship with ‘liberalism’.
September 9, 2018
I agree with Greg's review. I found this book negative, mostly critical, while gently begging the questions whether democracy is good and whether anything is truly better.
August 12, 2022
Although very Franco-centric in its content, de Benoist provides a very sublime criticism of parliamentary democracy in modern western European countries.
January 12, 2024
I like what Benoist’s doing, but I can’t say I’ve ever finished a book of his.
November 3, 2016
This review may contain spoilers, depending how you define spoilers. It's topical.
Chapters:
I. The Ancients and the Moderns
II. A Defence of Democracy
III. Popular Sovereignty and Pluralism
IV. The Crisis of Democracy
V. Towards Organic Democracy
POSTFACE: Ten Theses on Democracy
In this valuable book, Alain de Benoist lays out a fairly comprehensive look at the arguments around Democracy, in an easily digestable form. Written in 1985, it is striking how familiar the theories sound as I look at the immediate examples that are playing out in 2016. The author presents a history of democracy from its roots in ancient Greece, and draws the lines all the way through to modern times. As he presents four subsequent chapters, comparisons between original and current democracy help frame the readers thinking about why certain elements are problematic, and whether these are inherent issues or things specific to a new market democracy. He looks at a defence of the “cracy” of the “demos” in theory, then discusses the core fundamental of popular sovereignty, and the crisis of how this plays out practically. He closes the book with meaty discussion of a way forward, and a summary of the various observances and theses of democracy.
The book refers constantly to previous writers and seeks to present a holistic view of their writings. De Benoist emphasizes the differences and the agreements between earlier authors, and adds his own valuable insights and conclusions – even when the conclusion is that there is no real resolution to an argument. The Problem of Democracy is absolutely brimming with quotable nuggets – great philosophies and powerful truths. I’ve highlighted my way through the book like a high-school student with poor studying strategies, or like a hungry caterpillar grabbing at every green leaf. It is a beautiful book. My highlights show the sadness and depravity which the author so eloquently, even beautifully recorded. They show stark realities that certain politicians fail to understand, and that our heroes seem to personify.
The title problem and the solution:
The author deals with problems of opinion polls, whether they represent choice or even the ability to decide, whether narrow wins are even “democratic”, and the well-known issue of voting for the least worst candidate – with the only more dangerous thing is political apathy, which is ‘a real gift to extremism’. The book is riddled with problems as much as it is riddled with hopes. His summary problem is that ‘Democracy is ill because citizens are not giving their vote to politicians from whom they expect a concrete course of action reflecting well-defined commitments’. It’s not insurmountable, but it’s a pretty big problem.
What is the solution, then? There’s the hope of a benevolent dictator, of course. But the author doesn’t focus much on that. He looks broadly and finds a few hopeful observations. A few I’ve already mentioned – breaking silence, participation, referendums – but he also writes that democracy seems to work better in smaller states and republics, like the size of the nation where it was born. In medium and large states, monarchy and despotism seem to dominate, but even there the people can participate – though at greater cost perhaps. Practically, participation is the way of democracy. It’s not the best, but it’s what we’ve got.
Chapters:
I. The Ancients and the Moderns
II. A Defence of Democracy
III. Popular Sovereignty and Pluralism
IV. The Crisis of Democracy
V. Towards Organic Democracy
POSTFACE: Ten Theses on Democracy
In this valuable book, Alain de Benoist lays out a fairly comprehensive look at the arguments around Democracy, in an easily digestable form. Written in 1985, it is striking how familiar the theories sound as I look at the immediate examples that are playing out in 2016. The author presents a history of democracy from its roots in ancient Greece, and draws the lines all the way through to modern times. As he presents four subsequent chapters, comparisons between original and current democracy help frame the readers thinking about why certain elements are problematic, and whether these are inherent issues or things specific to a new market democracy. He looks at a defence of the “cracy” of the “demos” in theory, then discusses the core fundamental of popular sovereignty, and the crisis of how this plays out practically. He closes the book with meaty discussion of a way forward, and a summary of the various observances and theses of democracy.
The book refers constantly to previous writers and seeks to present a holistic view of their writings. De Benoist emphasizes the differences and the agreements between earlier authors, and adds his own valuable insights and conclusions – even when the conclusion is that there is no real resolution to an argument. The Problem of Democracy is absolutely brimming with quotable nuggets – great philosophies and powerful truths. I’ve highlighted my way through the book like a high-school student with poor studying strategies, or like a hungry caterpillar grabbing at every green leaf. It is a beautiful book. My highlights show the sadness and depravity which the author so eloquently, even beautifully recorded. They show stark realities that certain politicians fail to understand, and that our heroes seem to personify.
The title problem and the solution:
The author deals with problems of opinion polls, whether they represent choice or even the ability to decide, whether narrow wins are even “democratic”, and the well-known issue of voting for the least worst candidate – with the only more dangerous thing is political apathy, which is ‘a real gift to extremism’. The book is riddled with problems as much as it is riddled with hopes. His summary problem is that ‘Democracy is ill because citizens are not giving their vote to politicians from whom they expect a concrete course of action reflecting well-defined commitments’. It’s not insurmountable, but it’s a pretty big problem.
What is the solution, then? There’s the hope of a benevolent dictator, of course. But the author doesn’t focus much on that. He looks broadly and finds a few hopeful observations. A few I’ve already mentioned – breaking silence, participation, referendums – but he also writes that democracy seems to work better in smaller states and republics, like the size of the nation where it was born. In medium and large states, monarchy and despotism seem to dominate, but even there the people can participate – though at greater cost perhaps. Practically, participation is the way of democracy. It’s not the best, but it’s what we’ve got.
December 23, 2019
No matter what an organization claims itself to be practising if it ain't participatory and fraternal it ain't real democracy... and since in this world there exists so many different value systems the species as such can never hope to engage in any democracy beyond a very small scale.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews