Republic vs Democracy

[Die Rote Fahne]

I was sent this video: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=channel_video_title)

I watched in absolute rage. Pure, intellectual rage that could only be brought about by a video laced with misleading premises and factual errors.

So, after watching, or before watching it. I have this question:

Why is it that people are obsessed with the "Republic" idea when it comes to the USA. Obsessed that the USA is NOT, according to them, a democracy? Are they unaware of the meaning of the term republic? Is it as simple as ignorance? Why do they not realize that democratic republics exist, and the USA is one of them? (as far as the term democratic goes in capitalist society).

[Rafiq]

I choose to avoid these types of videos. I do get insanely pissed off.

[Dimentio]

Most democracies today are actually republics.

Republic = People vote for representatives who then write laws.

Democracy = People write laws and vote for laws.

That is why for example neither the Greeks nor the Romans defined the Roman Republic as a democracy, but as a new system, a combination of a monarchy (Consuls), a democracy (People's Assembly) and an aristocracy (the Senate).

In the ancient era, people looked on the content of systems rather than the names of systems.

Like, if we would have used the ancient Greek definition of social systems, we would have defined the United Kingdom and Sweden as republics, and Syria and North Korea as monarchies.

So... the tea partiers are kinda right in that aspect. The only thing which to disagree with them about is whether a republic should be above all criticism or not.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I choose to avoid these types of videos. I do get insanely pissed off.

I made the mistake of engaging someone who sent me the video as an argument. I felt significant decreases in my IQ whilst viewing it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Most democracies today are actually republics.

Republic = People vote for representatives who then write laws.

Democracy = People write laws and vote for laws.

That is why for example neither the Greeks nor the Romans defined the Roman Republic as a democracy, but as a new system, a combination of a monarchy (Consuls), a democracy (People's Assembly) and an aristocracy (the Senate).

In the ancient era, people looked on the content of systems rather than the names of systems.

Like, if we would have used the ancient Greek definition of social systems, we would have defined the United Kingdom and Sweden as republics, and Syria and North Korea as monarchies.

So... the tea partiers are kinda right in that aspect. The only thing which to disagree with them about is whether a republic should be above all criticism or not.

I'm not sure if most are Republics ( I do not know for sure). The UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Finland and Norway etc. have heads of states that are monarchs.

I mean, there are even totalitarian republics: China, Myanmar, etc.

[Thug Lessons]

I'm inclined to believe that the people who are so fond of pointing out that "we're a republic not a democracy" are genuinely opposed to democracy and have a serious hard-on for authoritarianism.

[Thug Lessons]

I'm not sure if most are Republics ( I do not know for sure). The UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Finland and Norway etc. have heads of states that are monarchs.

Well despite the titular head of state, all of those countries are parliamentary liberal democracies. In other words, they're democratic republics (and that term right there resolves any contradiction between democracy and republicanism you might want to posit).

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well despite the titular head of state, all of those countries are parliamentary liberal democracies. In other words, they're democratic republics (and that term right there resolves any contradiction between democracy and republicanism you might want to posit).

The definition of Republic, is that the head of state is not a monarch. So, referring to them as Democratic Republics is incorrect. I believe the two correct terms are "Constitutional monarchy" and "federal parliamentary democracy".

[Zeus the Moose]

I was sent this video: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=channel_video_title)

I watched in absolute rage. Pure, intellectual rage that could only be brought about by a video laced with misleading premises and factual errors.

So, after watching, or before watching it. I have this question:

Why is it that people are obsessed with the "Republic" idea when it comes to the USA. Obsessed that the USA is NOT, according to them, a democracy? Are they unaware of the meaning of the term republic? Is it as simple as ignorance? Why do they not realize that democratic republics exist, and the USA is one of them? (as far as the term democratic goes in capitalist society).

lol lumping monarchy and dictatorship in the same category, then claiming that they "never truly exist." :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Anyway though, the people that claim that "the United States is a republic, not a democracy" actually have a good point, in my view, and their definitions, at least in this limited regard, do tend to line up. That said, a republic is, at least using a classical definition, is any form of government without a monarch, so it can include a wide range of state forms, from the Roman Republic to the US and Germany today, to probably the form of state that we would see in the early period of working class rule. So, at least in my view, to talk simply about "republics" creates more confusion than it solves.

It is interesting that the video defines a republic as the "rule of law." As far as capitalist states go, I'd say that's actually quite correct. If we look at the US Constitution, for example, there are actually many structures put in place that legally restrict the right of the majority of the population to make decisions. The US Senate is one of the best examples I can think of, but things like presidential veto, the unelected judiciary (at least on higher levels), and similar things are in fact checks against the majority of the population from being able to pass laws to its benefit. While formally there is a democratic system in place (ie through regular elections, as flawed as they are), there is an unofficial quota of needing the president, at least 60 senators, and a majority of the House of Representatives to agree on something in order for it to become law (otherwise we get into issues like filibustering, veto, etc.) In short, this means a minority of representatives on one level or another has the potential to block legislation that the majority actually favours. It makes perfect sense that the US government is structured like this, because it was created to uphold the interests of a few (Southern planters and Northern merchants/capitalists) against the majority of the people. This is fundamentally not democratic, and the question then becomes whether or not you think this is a good thing (basically all upholders of the current constitutional system) or a bad thing (radical democrats, socialists and communists, etc.)

In contrast to this, I would counterpoise working class rule as most likely taking the form of a democratic republic, where the will of the majority will take a much stronger role in determining social policy. Again, this stems from the fact that working class rule is rule by the majority class in society, as opposed to the minority capitalist class and its agents.

[Che a chara]

Becky poos is a firm believer in this argument too, but at times he and his Fox and Pee farty cohorts deliberately distort the terms democracy and Democratic therefore using it as leverage to attack the Dems and of course their intention is solely to destroy the democratic process in the USA.

Another reason the right get in a tizzy is the '51%-49% rule' (which they fear encase it is voted to put more regulation and equitable laws in society contrary to what they perceive to be the constitution), yet ironically the 'majority' rule is good enough for them for the senate when they're in power

The republic is also apparently bound by the constitution, hence why you'll hear some refer to the USA as a constitutional republic, i think meaning that society's law and legislation is unchanging in accordance to the constitution, barring reforms that don't prohibit the popular 'freedoms'.

ps, couldn't watch the video because the sound is broke in me speakers.

[Thug Lessons]

The definition of Republic, is that the head of state is not a monarch. So, referring to them as Democratic Republics is incorrect. I believe the two correct terms are "Constitutional monarchy" and "federal parliamentary democracy".

Is that really the definition? If so, it seems rather arbitrary, in that the term tells you very little about about how government actually operates.

[Rafiq]

They aren't a republic or a democracy, but a polyarchy...

[Thug Lessons]

Most democracies today are actually republics.

Republic = People vote for representatives who then write laws.

Democracy = People write laws and vote for laws.

That is why for example neither the Greeks nor the Romans defined the Roman Republic as a democracy, but as a new system, a combination of a monarchy (Consuls), a democracy (People's Assembly) and an aristocracy (the Senate).

This is going off-topic, but I don't think the Roman saw their system like this at all. It's entirely a modern interpretation of the system, and, no offense, not the most informed one. Consuls were not monarchical in any sense, since not only did they hold purely military power, (in the tradition of tribal, rather than feudal, kings), but they were elected annually, and also there were two of them that exercised veto power over the other's actions. The relationship between the Plebeian Council and the Senate is interesting, but it's not fair to call either democratic or aristocratic, because they both exhibited qualities of both systems. What really distinguished the Roman system from the Greek system was its complex bureaucracy and competing institutions, officials and assemblies, rather that any fundamental difference between 'democracy' and 'not democracy'.

What both these system were, really, was a form of modern government built upon and imposed upon tribal government. And, of course, neither of them were truly democratic because only a portion of the population were citizens, (even of the plebeian variety), and often the majority were slaves.


One more minor thing: the Latin term that the word "republic" derives from, "res publica", just means "the public thing", i.e. the government. Maybe that's why the term doesn't seem to mean much.

[Die Rote Fahne]

They aren't a republic or a democracy, but a polyarchy...

All capitalist nations are oligarchies.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually the "definition" of republic is res publica, or "public matter" and to the romans general meant the overall state apparatus. But the idea of the modern republic came from N Italy generally "non-monarchial."
I find it much easier and coherent to refer to it to mean congressional governments rather than purely non-monarchial (see Thug Lessons).
Democracy, meaning "people power" is another matter.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Actually the "definition" of republic is res publica, or "public matter" and to the romans general meant the overall state apparatus. But the idea of the modern republic came from N Italy generally "non-monarchial."
I find it much easier and coherent to refer to it to mean senatorial-esque governments rather than purely non-monarchial (see Thug Lessons).
Democracy, meaning "people power" is another matter.

That's the origin of the term. Not the definition.

[Tim Finnegan]

I was sent this video: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=channel_video_title)
ow ow ow my head hurts ow

[Edit: Reply to Thug Lessons removed because of redundancy.]


All capitalist nations are oligarchies.
Plutocracies, technically. "Oligarchy" implies something close to an at least semi-formal ruling clique, like the Soviet nomenklatura. (Some, of course, combine both, making them plutarchies.)

[Thug Lessons]

That's the origin of the term. Not the definition.

Definitions are a hard thing to pin down in a living language like English. There are some definitions of the word 'republic' that would include governments like those in the Commonwealth, some that would exclude governments like those in China and Burma, and some that would do both. Arguing over the 'correct' definition only gives rise to pedantic bullshit like that promoted by the video in the OP. The origin of the term might be more instructive, because it shows that the people who originally used it wanted to convey that these sorts of governments resembled the Roman Republic.


[Edit: Reply to Thug Lessons removed because of redundancy.]

For godsakes let's hear it!

[Baseball]

Is that really the definition? If so, it seems rather arbitrary, in that the term tells you very little about about how government actually operates.

You are correct. The terms "republic" or "constitutional monarchy" or "democracy" simply describes who rules. It says nothing about HOW that rule is exercised. There can be a "Democratic Republic of Germany" or a "Federal Republic of Germany" which describes WHO rules, and then the question is to look at the liberty of the people residing within.

[Sentinel]

a new system, a combination of a monarchy (Consuls), a democracy (People's Assembly) and an aristocracy (the Senate).I'm not sure if I'd compare the consulate to the monarchy. It was the highest office in the Republic and the Roman Consuls wielded much power. But they were elected, there were always two at the same time, and their time in office was limited. Imo, a dictatorship of the aristocrat class is the most fitting description of the Roman Republic.

Despite the veto right of the People's tribune the senate always got it's way over the People's Assembly in important issues, either through the use of legislation, corruption or brute force. See the fate of the Gracchus brothers for an example.

In it's later stages the ultimate power in the Republic was consolidated in the hands of a small group of very prominent families though. The two final civil wars where the Julio-Claudian family finally established themselves as the first Imperial dynasty, were only the conclusion of this development.

I'd say that the senate of Rome in practice voted to abolish it's own power by granting Julius Caesar the title Dictator for life, and allowing Octavian to gather for himself all important offices as Princeps Senatus. It was retained as an institution in the Empire but then it's power was only nominal.

In the beginning it had a some actual influence and sometimes tried to interfere with the politics of the early Empire and even got a few of it's members elevated to the throne. But the power of the emperor soon became increasingly autocratic and despotic.


The UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Finland and Norway etc. have heads of states that are monarchs.Finland is a Republic, you were correct about the others though. ;)

[Thug Lessons]

More or less every government has been a dictatorship of some particular aristocratic class, Sentinel. What defined the Roman Republic, compared to previous systems, was the competition between various institutions and offices.

[Tim Finnegan]

For godsakes let's hear it!
Oh, nothing important, just saying that there is a (small and rather useless) republican movement in the UK, which would seem to suggest that we aren't yet a republic. I realised afterwards that it was really just treading already-covered ground, so I snipped it.

[Revolution starts with U]

To me the origin of a term pretty much IS the definition of it. People deviate from the historical context and start applying the term to entirely unrelated constructs. Like I said, this allows me to define "republic" as any sort of congressional government, and removes all those silly misunderstandings. (It only becomes tentative in comparison to whether or not a parlaiment is a congress)

I like to think of the US (to use an example) of a constitutional democratic republic. The law is guided by a constitution, the people vote on some laws and public matters, and the congress/executive/legislative (ie the state) exercises republican form of governance.

[Viet Minh]

Suppose the majority decided to take away ones home, or business, or children


:laugh: :laugh: Stop, no more!

[Die Rote Fahne]

Meriam Webster's Dictionary definition of "Republic".

Republic - a government having a chief/head of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

Montesquieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu) included both democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy) or oligarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy), where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. - wikipedia cited source "Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Bk. II, ch. 2–3."

[RGacky3]

I just want to point out, we here at revleft are actually discussing the implications and historical meanings of words, actually analyzing it. How many tea-partiers do you think have actually thought it through? My guess is none.

Most of their calling it a republic imo is semantics (republican no democrat), and just their overall hatred of democracy, which is not well hidden.

Honestly I don't think the terms republic and democracy conflict with each other, most people refer to republics as states without a monarch.

Democracy is a principle of democratic rule. A republic could be a democracy, or could less democratic.

But to think the Tea-partiers are actually making a real political point is rediculous.

Their political spectrum is a joke, and their definition of a republic being ruled by law is just pulled out of their ass. Their definitions are just pulled out of their ass, their definition of Anarchy has nothing to do with what anarchists believe, the guy is saying that anarchists secretly want to become dictators.

Videos like this need to be discarded, as its entirely pulled out of some dudes ass, and that dudes ass is not very smart.

[Viet Minh]

I just want to point out, we here at revleft are actually discussing the implications and historical meanings of words, actually analyzing it. How many tea-partiers do you think have actually thought it through? My guess is none.

Most of their calling it a republic imo is semantics (republican no democrat), and just their overall hatred of democracy, which is not well hidden.

Honestly I don't think the terms republic and democracy conflict with each other, most people refer to republics as states without a monarch.

Democracy is a principle of democratic rule. A republic could be a democracy, or could less democratic.

But to think the Tea-partiers are actually making a real political point is rediculous.

Their political spectrum is a joke, and their definition of a republic being ruled by law is just pulled out of their ass. Their definitions are just pulled out of their ass, their definition of Anarchy has nothing to do with what anarchists believe, the guy is saying that anarchists secretly want to become dictators.

Videos like this need to be discarded, as its entirely pulled out of some dudes ass, and that dudes ass is not very smart.

Its so much easier being fash, for example the 'are left wingers more attractive' thread would have gone like this:

14Nordic88: Aryan women are truly the most beautiful on earth
WhitePatriot: ALL white women are beautiful ;)
Wotan666: except race traters
14Nordic88: yeah except them

[RGacky3]

Also its easier being a libertarian, because you don't need to think very hard.

[superiority]

As an anarchist, I can confirm that I am secretly a monarchist. I suspect all the others are as well.

You have to wonder where these people get their information. Do they just make something up one day and say to themselves, "Hmmm, this incoherent rant based on my own political ignorance sounds vaguely plausible if you've never read a book. THE WORLD MUST LEARN OF THIS."

[Demogorgon]

This is such a silly argument, and one you only really see in America. By that definition of Republic Britain, Spain, Sweden and so on are Republics and that is objectively not the case.

The system of Government we see in most of the developed world is called Polyarchy, more simply called competitive elitism I suppose. Simplifying greatly, people have the right to vote in competitive elections where the results of the vote do matter, but the elite still hold the system in check to their advantage.

Many Polyarchies are Republics, but many are also constitutional monarchies. The difference doesn't really matter.

Incidentally, the argument in the video and many like it is premised on the idea that the "founding fathers" were these wise men whose views should ipso facto be deferred to. However they were from a certain social group seeking to create a form of Government best suited to them. That meant certain progress (the idea of formal aristocracy was deeply unpopular at the convention and Alexander Hamilton more or less marginalised himself with his fondness for monarchy) but it certainly meant keeping power away from those below.

This wasn't to keep the people as a whole safe, it was to keep the elite safe. The framers were not for instance thinking of the best interests of the slaves when they effectively entrenched slavery.

Also what is forgotten is that a very important period in creating modern American Government happened sometime afterwards with changes in suffrage laws giving all white men the right to vote. That was at least as important a development as the process of writing the constitution. Institutions do not exist in a vacuum.

[Dimentio]

The definition of Republic, is that the head of state is not a monarch. So, referring to them as Democratic Republics is incorrect. I believe the two correct terms are "Constitutional monarchy" and "federal parliamentary democracy".

For me (and the ancient Greeks), the definition of Republic vs Monarchy lies in the content rather than the exterior names of the officials. No monarch in Europe has any actual power today. The power is laying in the hands of the elected bodies, the parliaments. The person in charge is the head of government, not the symbolical head of state.

That is why I also consider Syria, North Korea, the Haiti of the Duvaliers and the Nicaragua of the Somozas monarchies.

[Dimentio]

Meriam Webster's Dictionary definition of "Republic".

Republic - a government having a chief/head of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

Montesquieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu) included both democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy) or oligarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy), where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. - wikipedia cited source "Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Bk. II, ch. 2–3."

I have some examples to counter that notion.

For example, in North Korea, the tradition has been that the son of the ruling head of state/head of government succeeds his father.

In Syria, Bashar al-Assad was chosen the successor of Hafez al-Assad.

In the DRK, Joseph Kabila succeeded his father.

There have also been "monarchies" which have worked like republics. In medieval age Sweden for example, the chieftains of the three main districts elected their king, and in Renaissance Poland, the Polish Parliament elected their king.

If the US President had been called "King" instead of President, would the US have been a monarchy, all other factors similar?

[Amphictyonis]

The USA has only the illusion of democracy. "The People who own the country ought to govern it"

-John Jay- (Member of the Convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution)

The people who own the country do control the country. We the people are just on a run away train...a sinking ship. And the band plays on.

[RGacky3]

Which is called plutocracy, which is what the US definately has, and waht the UK is getting, most people know this btw, most people know that big buisiness essencially runs the country.

[Bud Struggle]

Also its easier being a libertarian, because you don't need to think very hard.

As well as Stalinist and Trotskyist. And that woman (I think) that keeps going on and on about the wonders of Pol Pot. :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

As well as Stalinist and Trotskyist. And that woman (I think) that keeps going on and on about the wonders of Pol Pot. :rolleyes:

It is always easier to be a follower than a creator, since you somewhere resign your own responsibility.

Sometimes, I think that blind followers of this or that ideology are even more apathetic than those who truly are politically apathetic and just vote based on the interests of their wallets.

[Tim Finnegan]

To me the origin of a term pretty much IS the definition of it.
Interesting, then, that you've chosen to express that sentiment through the use of words now far removed from their original usage.


As well as Stalinist and Trotskyist. And that woman (I think) that keeps going on and on about the wonders of Pol Pot. :rolleyes:
Or a liberal, for that matter. That is, after all, the hegemonic ideology in Western society. :p

[Demogorgon]

It is always easier to be a follower than a creator, since you somewhere resign your own responsibility.

Sometimes, I think that blind followers of this or that ideology are even more apathetic than those who truly are politically apathetic and just vote based on the interests of their wallets.
True to an extent though blindly following something often involves an emotional investment that can hardly be thought of as "apathetic". People like to pore their passion into things, watch spectators at a football (real football ;)) match for instance, many of them have huge emotional attachment to their team. There's a saying here "[Football's not] a matter of life and death, it is more important than that" and that can sum up anything people pore themselves into, religion, political ideology, whatever else.

You get it very strongly with political parties. If you ask a lot of people that still back, maybe even are still members, of Labour here, they don't agree with what Blair did, they hate him even, but they stuck with the party because it means so much to them. Even worse you get many (most of their MPs come in here) who backed the total policy change because they felt it was necessary to take power. They didn't care they would not be able to enact the policies they had up until then spent decades dreaming of, the importance of the party had overtaken everything, just as a football fan doesn't mean if his team changes their line up in order to win matches, Labour MPs didn't mind changing the party's ideology to win power.

And to come back to where we started, political parties are not the only political things we can latch onto, ideologies are too, and once you have done so you are free to put your mind on auto-pilot and follow it blindly. Libertarians are incredibly good at this, but so are many people here. Pick any of the different variants of left wing politics found here and you will be able to easily find some members who are following it without thinking because they have an emotional attachment to it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Interesting, then, that you've chosen to express that sentiment through the use of words now far removed from their original usage.


Perhaps you would like to expand?
I am using republic, ie "res publica," in its historical context; the institutions of a congressional state. You can say republic means "non-monarchy" but that is just an inevitable conclusion of a congressional state. See the post above on why many "monarchies" are not in fact monarchichal, whereas many dictatorial states are. YOu can also see this when nearly if not everyone refers the establishement of the Julian dynasty as the "end of the republic."
Democracy I take to mean "people power." It can range from voting, to abolitionism; anything that seeks to further empower the people in general, or to maintain any already made gains.

[Tim Finnegan]

Perhaps you would like to expand?
Most of the words you used in the text I quoted don't have the same definition that their originals forms did. Otherwise it would have read something like "to me the beginning of a boundary crafty many IS the boundary of it." A bit inconsistent with your purist stance, then, don't you think? ;)

[Revolution starts with U]

Good point :thumbup1: