The Relationship between Govt and You: Social-Democracy

As a strict Anarchist, I am always seeking the complete dissolution of Government. However, I do realize that there must be a method to this madness, and Govt has an important role to play in its own dissolution. I am not a Destructionist, one who merely wants to go around tearing down and defunding all Govt institutions, in my mind that will just lead to tyranny by private corporations and institutions. But I do believe all relationships, including the one between you/me and the Govt., should always be working towards the dissolution of its hierarchical structure's of authority, and I believe Social-Democracy is the road to that goal.


Anarchism cannot be achieved by moderates or independents or the Right. Ironically, the same classic Conservative and Libertarian ideology (other wise known as Minarchism) that seeks to limit Govt is the very ideology that secures and empowers Govt ability to grow as big as it is now. Internet philosopher Stefan Molyneux makes this point in many of his arguments. Dually ironic, it is only through the Left leaning ideologies that true Anarchism can be actualized. This is because income equality gaps have to be severely minimalized before Govt. can dissolve and Left wing ideologies have the ideological framework to close these gaps as opposed to Right wing ideologies who only work to strengthen them.

Now, I know most people won't except this as true. They will remain strident in their beliefs that Govt should get out of the way. They are correct in that thinking, Govt is a virus that has grown out of control. They are incorrect though in thinking that by merely repressing Govt they can control it. The reason this is incorrect is because they assume this is a true Democracy where the people actually have control over what kind of Govt they have, which is not true. This is more of a Oligarchical Corporatocracy with Fascist tendencies than it is a true Republic or Democracy. If the people really had an unpropagandized/unmanipulated say in what kind of Govt they wanted, our nation would be unrecognizably different, namely the role of Govt would now be subjected to merely a moderator in voluntary interactions between people and people, and people and institutions. This is why moving towards a Social-Democracy is so crucial at this period in time.

In any hierarchical relationship where one person/group has authority over another, there must be the seeds of that authorities dissolution planted within the relationships contract/agreement. As an Anarchist, I am not opposed to authority, only to permanent structures of authority where the hierarchy is prohibited from being dissolved.

Take for instance the Parent/Child relationship structure. The Parent assumes the hierarchical position of authority over the Child. But for this relationship to be healthy and productive, there must be the seeds for this structures dissolution. As the Child grows into an adult, the relationship structure changes and the hierarchy is dissolved into a more mutual/equal structure, similar to that of friends.

Same with the Teacher/Student paradigm. The Teacher assumes the hierarchical position of authority over the Student. For this relationship to be healthy and productive, again, there must be the seeds for this hierarchical structures dissolution. As the Student learns what the Teacher has to teach, the relationship structure morphs into a more equal and less authoritative structure, until the Student learns all that the Teacher has to teach and the hierarchy is completely dissolved.

But the Government/Subject(Citizen) relationship does not have these seeds planted within its structure. This relationship depends on a permanent hierarchical structure, where the Government assumes the position of authority over the Subject indefinitely. Thus, in no sense of the word is this relationship healthy or productive. It allows no potential for the Subject to grow into authority over his/her self, nor does it offer the potential for the relationship to ever become one of equal measure, as do the Parent/Child and Teacher/Student relationship structures.

This is where a Social-Democracy becomes so important. It realigns the structure of relationship between Govt and Subject to a more healthy and productive standing, where the relationship is growing towards the dissolution of the hierarchy. Social-Democracy is not the end-all ideology, like Liberalism or Conservatism is. It is the 'road' through which we must travel to reach our goal, being a self-sufficient society that is without the need for rulers or ruling classes. If an ideology is not designed with its own dissolution in mind, then it is to be discarded as mere self-serving propaganda for the proponents of such.

Love to hear from people on this issue.

Hey, You know the Government is looking for information on you guys.

reply to post by EarthCitizen23

could our ideas work in unison?

I think so. In fact, I am probably much more in your camp than you know. Social-Democracy does not call for absolute compliance or involvement with the current form of govt. Nor does it call for a revolution to a new form of govt. To the contrary, it seeks to reform this govt into one that is actually possible to dissolve. What Libertarians and Conservatives, and obviously Liberals and most Democrats, seek is a permanent form of govt. So their ideas cannot work with an Anarchists. A Conservative or Libertarian seeks to establish a very limited form of govt, that is their end goal. And as we all know, a Liberal or Neo-Liberal, seeks to establish a large but efficient form of govt, that is their end goal. So none of that can work with what I am saying.

Things like work force strikes and social protests, noncompliance with tax codes and unjust laws, refusal to engage in the voting process... all can be used in the attempt to establish a true Social-Democracy. But again, it must be stressed to all that a Social-Democracy is not the end goal, it is just the 'road' that sets up the scenario for us to actualize our end goal of Anarchism/Voluntaryism. To do this, there cannot be strong imbalancements within society. There cannot be large gaps between the rich and the poor, there cannot be massive amounts of people at a disadvantage where they have no access to quality healthcare or education or jobs or basic resources like food and shelter. As long as there are these inequalities, there is the need for a govt to: A) Act on behalf of the disadvantaged as a representative sponsor for their plight towards upward mobility, and B) Act as the security firm to protect the rich from the violence waged against them by the struggling poor.

So anyone working to close these gaps, whether that is done through complacent action or resistance, as long as their ultimate goal is the dissolution of govt., is compatible with this ideology. Remember, any ideology that does not have its own dissolution within its structural framework is not an honest or productive ideology for society.

reply to post by openlocks


One of the Reasons I felt a resonance with your idea is because of the statement that,

If an ideology is not designed with its own dissolution in mind, then it is to be discarded as mere self-serving propaganda for the proponents of such.

I don't see my idea as and end all either, but as you say a ROAD to where we could go.

reply to post by EarthCitizen23


Cool, well thanks for chiming in. Tell me something more about your ideas though, maybe we can build. What is your "road plan"? And what is the "goal"?