The Only Revolution We Need Is A Totalitarian One

Reece Warren argues that a more pluralist revolution would mean going in the wrong direction

I watched Russell Brand’s Newsnight interview. I couldn’t help but admire his passion (and arguable ignorance) and, in addition, agree with his argument that democracy has failed and will never stop failing until we have a revolution. The difference, however, is that I believe the revolution we require is one in which a totalitarian regime is implemented.

The word totalitarianism is thrown around accompanied by such hatred and disgust, when I argue that it is, in fact, the best form of Government if implemented correctly. Why? Well  as most of you know from a previous article I’ve written, I’m not the biggest fan of democracy – in fact, I think democracy in its current form is possibly one of the worst forms of government you can hope to have.

To offer a brief summary of why I hold democracy in such abhorrence, I’ll simply say that I am very much a Platonic philosopher/philosophy student – democracy entirely revolves around manipulation of the voter by people who know the right thing to say, rather than knowing how to actually run a country. Knowing how to manipulate people is, to me, just as much Machiavellian and totalitarian as a totalitarian society itself.

So let me get to the point – why is totalitarianism justified? Let me clarify something beforehand – I emphasise that a totalitarian society is only the best form of Government granted the right person/people take over – it’s a necessary requirement and one I feel will eventually happen.

The totalitarian definition is as follows: dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.). So with this in mind, I want you to consider a Utopia (an ideal society) where the state revolves around one concept – justice.

We currently live in a society where lawyers fight to bring justice to individuals on the presumption that all laws are just, and never stop and question them – I argue that all laws created within a democracy are rarely just, because they’re created by a majority of people shackled to ignorance.

But what if we lived in a totalitarian society where the majority of peoples’ ‘votes’ didn’t matter? If we had a ruler(s) that knew what justice was and how to implement it, then why would the people’s opinions matter? There’s nothing wrong with paternalism, granted that theFulcrum people at the top of society are the most well-informed.

In addition, peoples’ opinions seem to have degenerated into a belief that ‘what’s good for me is bad for someone else’. What complete nonsense. What’s required is a totalitarian state that has a framework of positive liberty (means), that also incorporates negative liberty (“freedom from”), and that reinforces inequality, but only that based on meritocracy and academic ability. In other words, the people who work hard and/or exceed academically will be at the top of society and the people that do neither will be at the bottom.

Inequality based on gender, ethnicity, wealth, sexuality etc. will be eliminated. What is fundamental in this totalitarian state is that positive liberty undermines any of these inequalities, because they are, in my view, unjustified and a product of democracy and its circular notion of oppression.

For all of you reading this and thinking ‘Just shut the hell up’ (or some form of abuse), I want to ask you a question. What happens if (by fluke) a political party implements perfect policies? If they eradicate inequality? If they eradicate poverty? What happens then? Democracy would surely fall, as political point scoring would be irrelevant – the opposition(s) would be irrelevant – there’d nothing more would be left to achieve, would there?

But if this could just happen – what then would be the difference between this and a totalitarian state? It’d be one party dominating, year after year after year, because no alternative would be required or even wanted – so tell me, why do you/we vote, if we’re hoping for a totalitarian state where a Utopia can be achieved?

This presents the paradox which few people think of – but what I want to emphasise is that this will never be achieved through democracy. Politicians that listen to the people are destined to fail – and that’s what democracy is. People-power. But both ordinary people and democratic politicians are so often ignorance personified. I don’t blame them at all, but trying to achieve a Utopia by gaining a majority through ignorance is an impossibility, and that’s where philosophy comes in.

I’m not saying that all philosophers are the best citizens, or the brightest people, or should be at the top of society – far from it. I’m saying that the people best to rule a state are those who have the (closest) grasp of concepts such as justice and morality, which, objectively speaking, philosophers do.

I suspect this article will be unpopular for sure, and that many will disagree with me, but the best form of Government is, for me, a totalitarian one simply because a society where ignorance creates laws is always destined to fail. In order to break the cycle of failure, a revolution is required, whether we admit it or not. I don’t ask you to agree blindly with me: I just ask you to think it through for yourself.

9 COMMENTS

  1. “We currently live in a society where lawyers fight to bring justice to individuals on the presumption that all laws are just, and never stop and question them”

    This is a patently and demonstrably false assumption.

    “I argue that all laws created within a democracy are rarely just, because they’re created by a majority of people shackled to ignorance.”

    You don’t ‘argue’ this, you ‘assert’ it. You don’t even attempt to present an understanding or conceptualisation of justice which would support your own assertion.

  2. Here’s hoping you’re playing devil’s advocate with this article, I haven’t read anything this naive and crazy in a while.

  3. If there were “right” and “wrong” answers, or “perfect policies” then you might have a point. But I don’t think there are and I don’t think you do.

    • So you don’t believe in a distinction between right and wrong?

      How can you distinguish whether or not my opinions are right or wrong then? Doesn’t that go against what you’re saying?

  4. I agree in terms of pure logical principle, but I doubt a benevolent dictatorship (as in Pratchett’s Ankh-Morpk) can ever exist. For a start, I think any human would be corrupted by such power, as all humans are subject to the curses of our primordial evolution.

    • I don’t think it’s part of human nature to be corrupted by power at all – I think that it’s human nature to seek power.

      We have to find the individual that doesn’t actively seek this power and thus we’d be a hell of a lot closer to finding someone who won’t be corrupted by it.

      In my opinion power only corrupts those who actively seek it – which is 99% of the population. Just because there’s a minimal chance of finding this person/these people, it’s certainly possible.

      Thanks for the feedback though mate, I appreciate it!

      • If that’s what you start doing then you’ll get people trying to appear as though they don’t seek power, in order to seek power.

        What you’re suggesting is for a person to be elevated into a God-figure, whose every decision and opinion is sound.
        I’m surprised this even needs saying but these people don’t exist. Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody is at least occasionally wrong.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here