From now on, I may sometimes refer to the social contract theory for the state as the social alchemy theory for the state: But suppose a government with a direction of affairs by the best people. Who are the best? And how should we recognize their superiority? The majority are generally attached to all prejudices and have all ideas and instincts already outgrown by the more favored minority. But the various minorities, who all believe themselves to be in the right, and no doubt many of them are in part, which shall be chosen to rule? And by whom? And by what criterion? Seeing that the future alone can prove which among them is the most superior. If you choose a hundred partisans to dictatorship, youll discover that each one of the hundred believes himself capable of being, if not sole dictator, at least assisting very materially in a dictatorial government. The dictators will be those, by one means or another, succeeded in imposing themselves on society, and, in course of time, all their energy would inevitably be employed in defending themselves against the attacks of their adversaries, totally oblivious of their desire, if they ever had it, to be a merely educative power. Should government be, on the other hand, enacted through universal sufferage and so be the emanation, more or less, of the sincere wish of the majority? But if you consider these worthy electors incapable of providing for their own interests, how can they ever be capable of themselves choosing directors to guide them wisely? How solve this problem of social alchemy to elect a government of geniuses by a mass of fools? - Errico Malatesta, Anarchy
Posted on: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:04:01 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015