You are here

Anarchism vs Isocracy vs Democracy

This short text is about the differences between anarchism, isocracy and democracy. Anarchism means the absence of any kind of public commitments. In democracy and Isocracy, we have public commitments. In democracy which means rule of the nation, you need to belong to a nation, if you want to have a share of political power. The size of this share is not defined. A CEO of a big company has significantly more power than his cleaning lady. Now back to the isocracy which might mean equal power. In isocracy, nobody may dream about the romantic idea of having significantly more power.

Commenting on this Page will be automatically closed on May 1, 2010.

Comments

Thanks for your short comment tagiew.

I believe you are correct to imply that Isocracy represents the decentralisation of anarchism in terms of power, and the responsibility that comes from a democratic orientation. Not only can "nobody may dream about the romantic idea of having significantly more power", the idea of social non-involvement (a foolish idea at best) also becomes a romantic impossibility. After all, there is nothing that the ruling class would love if all the political activists became disinterested in politics..

Hi Lev,

Thanks for your comment. It is great that as I see you are not anonymiuos. Me too!

You nicely pointed out that an isocrat wants to have EXACTLY the same share of influence in creating public commitment as any other member of society too. In german web (I am from Germany), the german translation "Isokratie" is still very rare. There are only 23 hits by google and 2 of them are submited by me. :) I am a computer scientist and not a philosopher on expert level, but according to Rahim Taghizadegan (what we could find), none of the old greek philosophers would call the modern system democracy.

Well, Rahim Taghizadegan is incorrect, but from what I know of his ideas he'd agree with the criticisms of democracy by the Athenians, at least as cited by Thucydides - that is the possibility of "mob rule" suppressing minority interests, and the prospect (cf., Jefferson) of mass rule lacking deliberative capacity.