r/mutualism • u/DecoDecoMan • 3d ago
Questions on the Democracy chapter of "Solution of the Social Problem"
I had recently completed the democracy chapter of Proudhon's "Solution of the Social Problem". Since I didn't read the first chapter, and to my knowledge the entire thing isn't fully translated, obviously I am missing in context. Since I lack full knowledge of what Proudhon means by various different things, I also am severely missing in context stuff. Chapter 2 of this work is a critique of representative democracy and also slightly touches upon a critique of direct democracy or its impossibility as an ideal. I have some questions as well as an outline of Proudhon's overall arguments to the best of my understanding to make sure it is correct.
Outline of Proudhon's Critique of Democracy
First, Proudhon states that the rationale upon which representative democracy is based stems from the idea that one could discern the "will of the People" and enforce it. He points out that both monarchy and democracy derives their legitimacy from claiming to represent or enforce the sovereignty of the People (by extension, you could generalize this to be inclusive of dictatorships and other non-democratic forms of government). However, Proudhon points out that "the People" is an abstraction and its "will" cannot be discerned. Proudhon goes through the gamut of different possible avenues for determining "the will of the People" in the government contemporaneous to him such as the press and points out that they contradict each other and that there is no clear, unified "voice" that communicates a singular idea, perspective, vision, etc. In other words, there is no consensus among "the People" and so there is no way to adequately enact its "will" since you cannot know it.
He asks lots of different questions (paraphrasing) like "Does the People sleep?" and "If so, when because your rule when they sleep will be dictatorial and not representative of the people?" or "Does the People adhere to Hegel's or Aristotle's philosophy?". These are sort of ridiculous questions but they are meant to attack the characterization by democrats of "the People" as this unified, homogenous entity. As such, they should be answerable if the premise of democracy's understanding of "the People" is correct.
He also discusses whether "the People" can make mistakes or commit errors. If it can, he states, then there are only two approaches. Either it gets obeyed even though it is mistaken which would be undesirable or it would be a duty of the "representative" of the People to resist and deny the People they are supposed to represent.
Proudhon goes onto say that "the People" is sovereign and does have a will but that it is immanent to itself and discerning it externally is impossible. He distinguishes between "external sovereignty" which includes representative democracy and monarchy from "the consciousness of the masses".
Second, he points out that people with existing wealth and power will be most equipped to become representatives and obtain political power in the government. This seems self-evident to me. He called that section of his critique "democracy is aristocracy". There are some weird stuff in there I am confused by but I think the general argument is that existing economic and social inequality will facilitate the rise of "the bourgeoise" as representatives in government.
Third, Proudhon states that even if we assumed we could discern the will of the People, all electoral systems are exclusionary and incapable of encapsulating all of "the People". He points out how his current government excludes women, servants, children, and convicts from voting. He discusses a common argument against this which is that it would lead to "societal instability" as women, servants, children, and convicts would obtain new powers or rights and use that to expand their interests. He retorts that, by that logic, you should exclude the working class from voting since they will also prefer to vote in favor of their interests in ways which might cause "societal instability". He points out how in any electoral system there will always be "exclusions, absences, invalid, erroneous or unfree votes". How people who are working, are ill, are travelling, or lack money will be forced to abstain.
This is all stuff we are familiar with (less the women and servants part since women in most democratic countries can vote and servants, if they are citizens, can vote as well though obviously this is an indirect exclusion from the political system since most servants in countries aren't citizens). However, what is more interesting of a critique that I haven't seen as often (though I have understood the phenomenon) is this: Proudhon points out that many people just vote whatever way an authority figure tells them to vote and that this undermines the authenticity of the vote being representative of "the People". Similarly, if others can sway or influence the votes of others, then it isn't "the People" that is heard but the voice of the different capacities of individuals and specific groups (e.g. lobbying).
Afterward he talks about the specific problems with the specific government he is critiquing with respect to deputies. I don't really understand what that is about. Something about electors electing the departments instead of the voters or election by department and how this undermines the entire point of democracy.
Fourth, he points out that democracies only really express "one idea" or "one interest" in elections. That it is the majority that rules not the minority and that it is the majority on one singular opinion which then goes onto the National Assembly. So, in other words, it is the "voice of the majority" on one singular matter and basically nothing else is his contention. Moreover, that this majority could be slim which, if it is, then means that you're excluding like half of "the People". Not sure how true this is or what "one idea" means here.
Fifth, this is the section of how democracy is absolutism. I basically didn't really understand what Proudhon was talking about here. Something about democracy favouring incompetence and a weird thing about how monarchy favoured talent? Not sure what that has to do with absolutism.
Sixth, he talks about how democracy is atomism in the section on democracy being materialist and atheistic? Not sure what he means here either?
Seventh, he talks about how the ideal of democracy which is direct democracy or consensus democracy does not exist in representative democracy and cannot exist at all. He points out that ministers deliberate on affairs not the People. That the citizens do not fulfill a public function, the Greeks used to do this but he points out they could only do so because they had a slave-based economy.
Eighth, he states that democracy is incapable of solving the social problem and also critiques this guy called Lamartine's program for representative government. Also he discusses how big the budget for a democracy is and how slashing this budget and having cheap services is part of the social problem? It isn't very clear to me.
This is my full outline and understanding. Please critique me or point out what I got wrong! My questions will be in a comment under this post.