Republicanism

[MKS]

Is the model of the Representative Republic anti-egalitarian? Does a representative government allow for corruption, oligarchy and ultimately imperialism? Most models of Democratic Republics do evolve into complex and overreaching Empires, i.e. Rome, Britain, Greek, And American.

Another question; does populism lead to despotism. Most populist movement have devolved or developed into Despotic governments. I.e. Germany's Third Reich, Italy's Fascism under Mussolini, Cuba’s "Socialist" regime etc. Do populist leaders or parties automatically morph into despotic regimes? Alexander Hamilton held this view of the early American anti-Federalist movement; he contended that Thomas Jefferson and his Virginian cohorts would ride the populist wave to establish a despotic government.

Comments/thoughts?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:41 AM
Is the model of the Representative Republic anti-egalitarian? Does a representative government allow for corruption, oligarchy and ultimately imperialism? Most models of Democratic Republics do evolve into complex and overreaching Empires, i.e. Rome, Britain, Greek, And American.

Another question; does populism lead to despotism. Most populist movement have devolved or developed into Despotic governments. I.e. Germany's Third Reich, Italy's Fascism under Mussolini, Cuba’s "Socialist" regime etc. Do populist leaders or parties automatically morph into despotic regimes? Alexander Hamilton held this view of the early American anti-Federalist movement; he contended that Thomas Jefferson and his Virginian cohorts would ride the populist wave to establish a despotic government.

Comments/thoughts?
all governments have their flaws. so far we've found a represntaive democracy with decent checks to be a solid and stable system underwhcih people proser.

[MKS]

all governments have their flaws. so far we've found a represntaive democracy with decent checks to be a solid and stable system underwhcih people proser

That’s why this forum is so lacking. Everyone seems to give "sound bite" responses derived from some memorized ideology rather than a deep concise observation of a prompted question. Both sides of the spectrum (right and Left) seem to have a blind obedience to their ideological dogma.

For once I would like a discussion that creates deep thought and "original" conclusion, and not just to read regurgitated maxims of socio-economic theory.

[Dean]

It all depends on your idea of what constitutes egalitarian and what kind of power structure is truly existant in the representative democracy. If the state is one which is highly decentralized and the leaders mostly act out the democratic interests of the people, I would regard the republic as having egalitarianism in that sense. If you refer to republics like those seen in the US or the USSR than it becomes clear that power is heavily centralized, despotic, and is not responsible to the people.

[Whitten]

Perhaps you could present an argument or reasoning behind representitive democracy being anti-egalitarians, for us to consider?

Egalitarianism is equality and IF (obviously the bourgeois republics we've seen so far wouldnt count) everyone is given an equal right/oppertunity to vote and/or be elected, I fail to see it being anti-egalitarian.

[MKS]

I would regard the republic as having egalitarianism in that sense. If you refer to republics like those seen in the US or the USSR than it becomes clear that power is heavily centralized, despotic, and is not responsible to the people.

So is the Republican structre flawed or the individuals who hold power? Is a loose Confederation more condusive to liberty than a heavily centralized Republic, and of so why? Or is the people that hold power which corrupt the system?

[Eleutherios]

It's not the people who are in charge that is the problem. It's that there are people in charge. Unfortunately a lot of people are drawn to the idea that everything will be hunky-dory if only we got these nasty corrupt people out of power and put in some good morally upright ones in their place.

But the simple truth, borne out by all of human history, is that power corrupts. The more you concentrate power into the hands of a few, the more those few are going to take advantage of the power they have been given to pursue their own self-interests. The more power is spread out among the people equally, the more decisions are made with the common good in mind.

So, while I would certainly consider a representative republic to be preferable to fascism, Stalinism or absolute monarchy, it does not go far enough—there is still a lot of power concentrated at the top, and democratic ideals could be spread much farther than they have already (for example, into the workplace).

[Connolly]

Do populist leaders or parties automatically morph into despotic regimes?

Yes, I believe they do.

If someone is representing the working class - then they are not working as working class themselves - since they actually have control over, but not exclusivly - some part of production and of bourgeois production relations.

If we go by "being determines consciousness" - which I firmly believe - then that person who represents the working class cannot act totally for them - but rather his decisions are based on his material conditions - and those material conditions are not that of the proletariat - since he is not "working" as such.

So, yes - they do morph into something else.

This is one of the main reasons I do not believe in Leninism and the vanguard.

Of course - Lenin tried to solve these problems by "making those who represent more recallable" and "earn the same wage as a worker" - but that still ignores the fact that - while in a position of representation - the representative is acting based on his material conditions.

To think a "vanguard" can steer the workers towards socialism, when it is the workers themselves who do the steering - is complete rubbish.

But thats just that situation.

Populist leaders who gain power through "democratic" elections are not even under such "recallable" and wage restrictions - sometimes being in for fixed terms such as 7 or 4 years - where does that leave them then - detached from working class consciousness for such long durations.

Fucking screwed up.

[Connolly]

By the way MKS - I see you quote Noam in your sig.

What are your politics?

Anarchist? reformist?

Are you a communist of any sort?

Just curious.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:58 PM

I would regard the republic as having egalitarianism in that sense. If you refer to republics like those seen in the US or the USSR than it becomes clear that power is heavily centralized, despotic, and is not responsible to the people.

So is the Republican structre flawed or the individuals who hold power? Is a loose Confederation more condusive to liberty than a heavily centralized Republic, and of so why? Or is the people that hold power which corrupt the system?
The irony of corruption within a representitive democracy is that its usually a result of the people failing to do something about it. Our very means of revolution is educating the masses to develop true class consiousness, if we succeed in this, then we need not fear open corruption.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 01:58 PM

I would regard the republic as having egalitarianism in that sense. If you refer to republics like those seen in the US or the USSR than it becomes clear that power is heavily centralized, despotic, and is not responsible to the people.

So is the Republican structre flawed or the individuals who hold power? Is a loose Confederation more condusive to liberty than a heavily centralized Republic, and of so why? Or is the people that hold power which corrupt the system?
even a highly decentralized gov't can have problems. It depends both on structure and people; I cannot claim that one of the two obvious modifiers to the equation are solely responsible. Some native cultures valued hatred amongst their own people as a virtue and love as aberrant and immoral, while others valued love and pacifism above most all other values. The nature of the state modifies a person's mental status, as well. There is no clear answer to a vague question of an even vaguer[sic?] situation.

[MKS]

By the way MKS - I see you quote Noam in your sig.

What are your politics?

Anarchist? reformist?

Are you a communist of any sort?

Well, I don’t subscribe to any party or organization. I consider myself Progressive, anti-state, and anti-republican. I think that Communism/Marxism is a flawed ideology and is not a practical solution to the neo-liberal, capitalist system that currently oppresses. Unlike a lot of "Leftists" I do have a clear sense of morality, I am not a theist but do believe that there are mysteries to this life that can never be revealed. I don’t share the cynicism of the human as many Communists do.

[Janus]

I don’t share the cynicism of the human as many Communists do.
We are not cynical towards humans. If we were, we would think that communism would be impossible.