What do you think?
Rate this book
A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries
This guide explores the arguments against democracy. Democracy is often viewed as a mandatory system for any civilized country, but there is a compelling case, drawing on economics, political theory, and cognitive psychology, that claims otherwise.
95 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 2015
4 people are currently reading
143 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 23, 2022
This was alright. It's not a watertight political thesis, but it's a short introduction to neoreactionism for those who don't want t0 read 10k pages of half-understandable Moldbug.
February 5, 2015
In one sense, the aim of this book is rather modest: to challenge the reader to consider the viability of alternative forms of government to liberal democracy. In another sense, even openness to that consideration is controversial given the extent to which western society has deeply imbibed (and been indoctrinated in) the 'obvious' superiority of democratic governance.
The arguments against democracy are clearly and succinctly laid out here, and are persuasive. Anissimov consciously limits the arguments to the realm of the empirical, eschewing more "values-based" approaches to the question. This approach is attractive in that it can, in theory, appeal to a broad range of interested and persuadable parties.
The drawback of this approach is that it results in a somewhat Marxist approach to history, wherein all social causation is approached from the vantage of the material -- chiefly evolutionary and economic. As a Christian theocratic traditionalist, spiritual or theological causation is always primary, and so this approach results in some lacunae, from my perspective. This is not a fault of the author, as he has intentionally limited himself in such a way to make room for such perspectives, but in my view the case for alternative forms of government (chiefly monarchical) is more persuasively made when the specific role of the Church is explicated.
The arguments themselves are compelling and engagingly written. Among them the fact that, in a democracy there are low incentives for government officials to take the long-view on sound governance, and so their policies trend toward short-term expediency and pandering. They thus accumulate debt that no individual is responsible for. Whereas a king -- even a selfish one -- has incentive to pursue long-term goals, and govern well, as he himself stands to lose if he accumulates too much debt, or otherwise fails.
It also lays out the case that 'inequality' is a function of liberty, as opposed to the popular view that liberty and equality are partners. Liberty means the liberty to succeed and outperform, and ascend to particular social strata that others may not reach. The case is further made that such 'inequality' is natural and that societies function better when there are not artificial attempts made to 'undo' it.
The foolhardy pursuit of 'equality' is a primary cause of many social and economic ills in liberal democracy. I agree that inequality is an immutable fact of the 'natural' order today. But here is another place where I think a spiritual dimension could aid the case. According to Christian teaching, the world as we encounter it is *not* currently existing 'according to its nature' (naturally), but is rather fallen. With this in mind, the case for monarchical government -- as well as the case for developing the virtuous institutions and culture that could allow it to flourish -- could be made in an appropriately conservative manner: as the best of various fallen options, with the 'society' of the Christian Church being the true eschatalogical society all are called to, which appears in history in the midst of the broader society. This doesn't cut against the case for authoritarian, hierarchical government, but rather aids it, as hierarchy itself is explicitly not a result of the fall, but is part of the natural (in the true sense) created order.
Qualms aside, I highly recommend the book if you're interested in a fairly breezy tour of the arguments against democracy, from a neoreactionary perspective.
The arguments against democracy are clearly and succinctly laid out here, and are persuasive. Anissimov consciously limits the arguments to the realm of the empirical, eschewing more "values-based" approaches to the question. This approach is attractive in that it can, in theory, appeal to a broad range of interested and persuadable parties.
The drawback of this approach is that it results in a somewhat Marxist approach to history, wherein all social causation is approached from the vantage of the material -- chiefly evolutionary and economic. As a Christian theocratic traditionalist, spiritual or theological causation is always primary, and so this approach results in some lacunae, from my perspective. This is not a fault of the author, as he has intentionally limited himself in such a way to make room for such perspectives, but in my view the case for alternative forms of government (chiefly monarchical) is more persuasively made when the specific role of the Church is explicated.
The arguments themselves are compelling and engagingly written. Among them the fact that, in a democracy there are low incentives for government officials to take the long-view on sound governance, and so their policies trend toward short-term expediency and pandering. They thus accumulate debt that no individual is responsible for. Whereas a king -- even a selfish one -- has incentive to pursue long-term goals, and govern well, as he himself stands to lose if he accumulates too much debt, or otherwise fails.
It also lays out the case that 'inequality' is a function of liberty, as opposed to the popular view that liberty and equality are partners. Liberty means the liberty to succeed and outperform, and ascend to particular social strata that others may not reach. The case is further made that such 'inequality' is natural and that societies function better when there are not artificial attempts made to 'undo' it.
The foolhardy pursuit of 'equality' is a primary cause of many social and economic ills in liberal democracy. I agree that inequality is an immutable fact of the 'natural' order today. But here is another place where I think a spiritual dimension could aid the case. According to Christian teaching, the world as we encounter it is *not* currently existing 'according to its nature' (naturally), but is rather fallen. With this in mind, the case for monarchical government -- as well as the case for developing the virtuous institutions and culture that could allow it to flourish -- could be made in an appropriately conservative manner: as the best of various fallen options, with the 'society' of the Christian Church being the true eschatalogical society all are called to, which appears in history in the midst of the broader society. This doesn't cut against the case for authoritarian, hierarchical government, but rather aids it, as hierarchy itself is explicitly not a result of the fall, but is part of the natural (in the true sense) created order.
Qualms aside, I highly recommend the book if you're interested in a fairly breezy tour of the arguments against democracy, from a neoreactionary perspective.
February 10, 2015
Este libro de Michael Anissimov era necesario, y es que no todos tienen la paciencia para leer las más de mil páginas con las que Moldbug puso en marcha la maquinaria del pensamiento neorreaccionario. El principal objetivo de esta obra es refutar la noción de que la democracia es el mejor —o cuando menos el más deseable— de los sistemas. Esa idea, nos dice Anissimov, no es más que una parte fundamental del credo secular de nuestra era, una mitología de la que no nos es posible dudar.
Si bien gran parte de la argumentación tiene un trasfondo liberal —sea desde el punto de vista del derecho natural, las ideas hayekianas del orden espontáneo, el análisis hoppeano de la ineficiencia de la democracia frente a los gobiernos privados, la necesidad de la propiedad y de los mercados libres y de la aberración que supone el concepto del igualitarismo—, este libro no es en modo alguno una apología al libertarismo radical en la medida en que Anissimov encuentra necesaria la existencia de un gobierno limitado pero fuerte (una monarquía, para decirlo en criollo). De hecho, muchos han llegado a considerar que lo que llamamos neorreacción no es más que postliberalismo, es decir un liberalismo basado en los valores tradicionales de occidente que desecha por completo cualquier asomo de la visión progresista. De ahí que las jerarquías devengan necesarias, así como un orden social que resguarde tales concepciones culturales, algo que el libertario relativista y pasivo encontraría inaceptable.
Como lo anuncia el título, esta es una guía contra la democracia (y aquí añado, contra el demotismo como el de los regímenes fascistas o las tiranías socialistas) y una buena introducción al pensamiento neorreaccionario, sin embargo quien desee inmiscuirse aún más en esta ideología, que es mucho más vasta que el monarquismo, tendrá que consultar otras fuentes.
Si bien gran parte de la argumentación tiene un trasfondo liberal —sea desde el punto de vista del derecho natural, las ideas hayekianas del orden espontáneo, el análisis hoppeano de la ineficiencia de la democracia frente a los gobiernos privados, la necesidad de la propiedad y de los mercados libres y de la aberración que supone el concepto del igualitarismo—, este libro no es en modo alguno una apología al libertarismo radical en la medida en que Anissimov encuentra necesaria la existencia de un gobierno limitado pero fuerte (una monarquía, para decirlo en criollo). De hecho, muchos han llegado a considerar que lo que llamamos neorreacción no es más que postliberalismo, es decir un liberalismo basado en los valores tradicionales de occidente que desecha por completo cualquier asomo de la visión progresista. De ahí que las jerarquías devengan necesarias, así como un orden social que resguarde tales concepciones culturales, algo que el libertario relativista y pasivo encontraría inaceptable.
Como lo anuncia el título, esta es una guía contra la democracia (y aquí añado, contra el demotismo como el de los regímenes fascistas o las tiranías socialistas) y una buena introducción al pensamiento neorreaccionario, sin embargo quien desee inmiscuirse aún más en esta ideología, que es mucho más vasta que el monarquismo, tendrá que consultar otras fuentes.
August 4, 2021
A little book for people only beginning to read anti-democratic critique and reactionary literature that may help to get the general argumentation and ideas of those who oppose democracy. It's quite bare-bones but points in the direction of books and topics worth discovering and even though simplistic, it can ignite the interest in them. Anissimov is no Moldbug for sure, his language is dry and flavorless, his references are set up like it's a dissertation and general, but still, this reading may be useful as an introduction and is succinct enough to excuse the style this book is written in.
December 13, 2016
reactionaries do not deserve over one star.
February 7, 2015
"Brevity is the soul of wit." Michael I applaud you for laying out your critique of democracy in very brief and shrewd manner. Neoreactionaries possibly due to Curtis Yarvin's legacy feel they need to bloviate endlessly meandering around with endless examples and vocabulary only an insider could follow. You do non of these things, you laid clear and concise points that one can digest in one evening. Well done.
This is an excellent introduction to why Monarchism, yes Monarchism may indeed be better than our cherished democracy.
This is an excellent introduction to why Monarchism, yes Monarchism may indeed be better than our cherished democracy.
October 22, 2015
Good in the critiques, very narrow in the solutions
December 20, 2023
The first chapters are compelling, yet repetitive and derivative arguments against democracy and publicly-owned government - which have been covered better and in more detail elsewhere. The last chapter shows the author's amateurish understanding - and unconvincing takedown - of Hoppe and Rothbard's brand of anarcho-capitalism.
Yes, democracy is trash and the average voter is stupider than a door knob, but this isn't the book to convince the average worshipper of the official state religion to even begin to entertain the notion that there is a better alternative.
Skip this and go straight to Hoppe.
Yes, democracy is trash and the average voter is stupider than a door knob, but this isn't the book to convince the average worshipper of the official state religion to even begin to entertain the notion that there is a better alternative.
Skip this and go straight to Hoppe.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews