Athenian Democracy

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

in the year 500B.C. the Athenian noble Solon began a political experiment that would have lasting repercussions forever, he began to take Athens on the long a stony road to democracy, however, it was not the 'representative' democracy of the arrogant and uptight Romans, or the modern day bourgeoisies, it was direct democracy, with all citizens taking part, and able to stand for any position; in my opinion it was the first and last democratic state.

Although Solon never intended to create democracy, he aimed to stop the conflict between the Thetes (the poorer classes) and the Eupatridae (the nobles) perhaps the first recorded evidence of class conflict. After a period of Autocratic rule by three Tyrants, Kleisthenes came to hold sway over the assembly and instiututed a great number of remforms to make the state more democratic, followed by Ephialtes and his close ally Pericles.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fd/Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png/721px-Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png' alt='' width='721' height='599' class='attach' /> (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fd/Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png/721px-Athenian-constitution-aristotle.png)

This is the Athenian Constitution.

However Athens was beset by enemies on all sides, the Corinthians, jealous of Athens' trading empire, and the Spartans (the first Nazi state) fearful of the new revolutionary ideas coming out of Athens.

Freedom in political matters led to other freedoms, philosophy flourished and in the shade of the agora philosophers, politicians and the proles could meet without hindrance or prejudice.

However, Athens was far from a socialist utopia, it was still capitalist in nature, and often the un-educated thetes were led astray by the astute and well trained nobles (such as Alcibiadies). Only men could be citizens and there were slaves, but, in my opinion Athens provides a cruitail in sign into the beginngs of class struggle, and should provide a basis for any true communist constitution.

Sources:

my own ancient history notes, Aristotle: the Constiution of the Athenians, Robin Lane Fox The Classical World.

So chaps what are your opinions?

[spartan]

I have to agree that the only true Democracy is Direct Democracy.

IMO Representative Democracy is just an Oligarchy where everyone gets to choose which oppressers they want to oppress them for the next few years.

Its funny because all these modern "Democracies" always look back at Ancient Greece and say that that was the start of our modern day "Democracy" and western civilisation and yet these modern day Representative "Democracies" are nothing like the true Direct Democracy that Ancient Greece once had!

Anyway isnt Switzerland a Direct Democracy?

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:04 pm
Anyway isnt Switzerland a Direct Democracy?
Yep, but they're pretty Nationalistic and VERY Free market.

[Lynx]

Representative democracy is a sham. Your vote is a blank check for politicians to do with as they please.
I don't believe direct democracy is scalable beyond a certain point. Athens was a city state with 60,000(?) voters. Today's states comprise millions of voters with three (or more) levels of government.
State and federal politics need to be abolished. Direct democracy works best when it is small and beautiful.

[Dros]

Let's not forget the terms of Athenian democracy. Only land owning, men, who were citizens of Athens could vote.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:41 pm
Let's not forget the terms of Athenian democracy. Only land owning, men, who were citizens of Athens could vote.
By the 4th Century any citizen could vote, land owning or not.

but i do agree that it was limited, the male-only citizen body beeing one, however if you look at Athens in context to its time period, when most of westen Europe was under the rule of petty chieftans it was a truly revolutionary concept


Anyway isnt Switzerland a Direct Democracy?

It has alot of refurendums but it still has a 'representative' legislature, and a federal council as its executive, so while it is perhaps the most direct of all representative democracies, it still suffers from being just that, a representative democracy.


Its funny because all these modern "Democracies" always look back at Ancient Greece and say that that was the start of our modern day "Democracy" and western civilisation and yet these modern day Representative "Democracies" are nothing like the true Direct Democracy that Ancient Greece once had!

For the most part I would say that modern democracies are more akin to the political system of rome, which was a representative democracy, and incredibly corrupt and since only one class could hold office it was extremely oligarchic, furthermore the senatorial classes dispised the proles (rome is the origin of the word). Strikingly similar to the political systems most of us live under today, i think you'll agree.

[Kitskits]

Wait a moment. Athens during athenian democracy had slaves right? They were the productive force of that society. They had no right to vote, and of course not many rights, being slaves. Then, what's the huge difference between athenian democracy and bourgeois democracy? The productive forces are enslaved in both democracies, wether with full slavery or wage-labor slavery. If there were no slaves in Athens and everyone should be working, who would have time for politics and direct democracy.

I can't see why everyone idolizes athenian democracy.

[spartan]

I can't see why everyone idolizes athenian democracy.
Well is suppose that it might have something to do with the fact that they showed everyone that a territiory could be run Democratically by the people (And yes i know that it was only the landowners who could vote).

There is also the fact that there Democractic systems of governance have laid the foundations for quite progressive ideologies and movements throughout our modern history, and also future progressive ideologies (Direct Democracy) that will be implemented in our future Socialist society.

If it wasnt for the Greeks and their property rights, modern Democratic Capitalism might never have developed as a governing and economic principle for a society and Socialism would never have been realised.

So we owe a hell of alot to the Greeks and Romans, who's governing and economic principles have been the foundation and inspiration for our modern systems, which will of course lead to Socialism.

There is a reason why the period after the fall of the western Roman Empire, and before the rise of the high Medieval period, is known as the "dark ages".

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:32 pm
Wait a moment. Athens during athenian democracy had slaves right? They were the productive force of that society. They had no right to vote, and of course not many rights, being slaves. Then, what's the huge difference between athenian democracy and bourgeois democracy? The productive forces are enslaved in both democracies, wether with full slavery or wage-labor slavery. If there were no slaves in Athens and everyone should be working, who would have time for politics and direct democracy.

I can't see why everyone idolizes athenian democracy.
clearly its better to idolize the fascist spartans

[Kitskits]

Yes, but when stateless communist society is achieved, all this is useless. Democracy pre-hypothesizes class struggle.

I mean, yes Atheneans (sorry for incorrect spelling) were progressive, but they really failed to see the greater good. They provided with the tool (democracy) but the aim came with Marx.

Democracy by itself means nothing, and democracy means dictatorship too, right?

[spartan]

Democracy by itself means nothing, and democracy means dictatorship too, right?
Kind of.

You see our modern systems, which are Representative Democracies, are Oligarchic in nature, and thus a Dictatorship of one class over another (Bourgeoisie over the Proletariat).

But if you research such concepts as Direct Democracy, i think that you will find that not all Democracy is bad.

Here is a link that you might find useful on this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Here also is a useful quote for you that describes the sham that is Bourgeoisie Oligarchic Representative Democracy:

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them." Karl Marx

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:28 am
Yes, but when stateless communist society is achieved, all this is useless. Democracy pre-hypothesizes class struggle.

I mean, yes Atheneans (sorry for incorrect spelling) were progressive, but they really failed to see the greater good. They provided with the tool (democracy) but the aim came with Marx.

Democracy by itself means nothing, and democracy means dictatorship too, right?
I look at Athenian democracy as a good constitution for a communist state, its a better constitution than that of the Soviet Union and written 1900 years before as well.

while I would never claim that Athens was a communist state, it was a vast improvement over the oligarchies and monarchies of the other Hellenic States.

[w0lf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:40 pm
Representative democracy is a sham. Your vote is a blank check for politicians to do with as they please.
I don't believe direct democracy is scalable beyond a certain point. Athens was a city state with 60,000(?) voters. Today's states comprise millions of voters with three (or more) levels of government.
State and federal politics need to be abolished. Direct democracy works best when it is small and beautiful.
I couldn't agree more comrade. ;)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by The_Decemberist+December 25, 2007 01:11 am--> (The_Decemberist @ December 25, 2007 01:11 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:40 pm
Representative democracy is a sham. Your vote is a blank check for politicians to do with as they please.
I don't believe direct democracy is scalable beyond a certain point. Athens was a city state with 60,000(?) voters. Today's states comprise millions of voters with three (or more) levels of government.
State and federal politics need to be abolished. Direct democracy works best when it is small and beautiful.
I couldn't agree more comrade. ;) [/b]
In my (ideal) communist state, every area with 100,000 voters would be come a soviet, and all of these have the power to initiate, debate and vote on legislation, while ministers would be elected to run national services (Health, Transport, Economics etc).

its quasi-federal

[KC]

In my (ideal)

Yeah, exactly.


Kind of.

No, always. All forms of governance presuppose and necessitate the existence of classes.

[black magick hustla]

Its silly to fetishize a form of goverment, like the soviet, over other forms. Depends on the conditions, etc. Lets keep in mind that Athens was much more simple, in terms of rammifications, technology etc than what exists today.

[Led Zeppelin]

There was no "complete direct democracy" in Athens:


Only adult male Athenians citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes – effectively eighteen years and over – had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, children, women and resident foreigners (metics). Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification.


During the 4th century BC, the population of Athens may well have comprised some 250,000—300,000 people. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 will have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly.
Emphasis added.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Participation_and_exclusion)

Using that as a perfect description of "direct democracy" shows a tremendous ignorance of history.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 25, 2007 04:48 am
There was no "complete direct democracy" in Athens:


Only adult male Athenians citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes – effectively eighteen years and over – had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, children, women and resident foreigners (metics). Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification.


During the 4th century BC, the population of Athens may well have comprised some 250,000—300,000 people. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 will have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly.
Emphasis added.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Participation_and_exclusion)

Using that as a perfect description of "direct democracy" shows a tremendous ignorance of history.
It was a direct democracy of adult male citizens, and something much more participatory than what has been seen in much of history.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:14 am
It was a direct democracy of adult male citizens, and something much more participatory than what has been seen in much of history.
Yeah, I forgot that slaves were sub-human.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 25, 2007 06:11 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 25, 2007 06:11 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 05:14 am
It was a direct democracy of adult male citizens, and something much more participatory than what has been seen in much of history.
Yeah, I forgot that slaves were sub-human. [/b]
dont be silly, i am not putting athenian democracy on a pedestrial.

thousands of people argued in an assembly--that is hell of a lot of participation.

i never said it was great or whatever

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Marmot+December 25, 2007 06:17 am--> (Marmot @ December 25, 2007 06:17 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 25, 2007 06:11 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 05:14 am
It was a direct democracy of adult male citizens, and something much more participatory than what has been seen in much of history.
Yeah, I forgot that slaves were sub-human.
dont be silly, i am not putting athenian democracy on a pedestrial.

thousands of people argued in an assembly--that is hell of a lot of participation.

i never said it was great or whatever [/b]
Well sure, taken in its historical context it was quite progressive (in terms of formal democracy), but compared to history in general, it is nothing to be "proud" of, which was the vibe the original poster gave off. Quite a ridiculous one considering that much more democratic institutions have existed throughout history, such as the Paris Commune and the Soviets.

Regardless though, given the level of consciousness of the "male citizens" at that time, it would not have made a difference if you lived in Athens or in any other city-state/Empire, the policies were pretty much the same.

More people deciding on shitty policy does not make it less shitty, to put it bluntly.

[Kitskits]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 25, 2007 06:26 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 25, 2007 06:26 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:17 am

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 25, 2007 06:11 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 05:14 am
It was a direct democracy of adult male citizens, and something much more participatory than what has been seen in much of history.
Yeah, I forgot that slaves were sub-human.
dont be silly, i am not putting athenian democracy on a pedestrial.

thousands of people argued in an assembly--that is hell of a lot of participation.

i never said it was great or whatever
Well sure, taken in its historical context it was quite progressive (in terms of formal democracy), but compared to history in general, it is nothing to be "proud" of, which was the vibe the original poster gave off. Quite a ridiculous one considering that much more democratic institutions have existed throughout history, such as the Paris Commune and the Soviets.

Regardless though, given the level of consciousness of the "male citizens" at that time, it would not have made a difference if you lived in Athens or in any other city-state/Empire, the policies were pretty much the same.

More people deciding on shitty policy does not make it less shitty, to put it bluntly.[/b]
I'm from Greece and I agree 100% with Led Zeppelin. I'm not proud at all for Athenean Democracy.

I would also like to make one point. Everyone who says Athenean Democracy is very progressive (and if he is not an idiot) also admits that only a certain proportion of the population voted, he admits there were slaves etc etc and he says that in a future society we should extend the number of that proportion into the whole population. My point is that this COULD have been done in Athens but they CHOSE not to. Because of some certain reasons, and if you ask me the reasons are that in an era of wild class struggle direct democracy would mean civil war or war generally or something very very unanticipated. Imagine direct democracy in a proletariat-dominated population. It would do exactly what a revolution would do but in a more reformist pacifist way that would eventually lead to revolution. So why bother trying to overcome bourgeois propaganda and make all people vote in direct democracy for a revolution? Revolution is necessary anyway.

Quite the same goes for a socialist period because direct democracy would lead to the absolute extermination of private property and a communist society. So why bother trying to make the people forget bourgeois thinking and vote for communism? Communism is the necessary consequence of it.

Don't misunderstand, you are not speaking with a fascist pig. I also like democracy, but ONLY when it becomes a tool of the proletariat for a path towards communism. The ONLY way that I like it, though, is that I am afraid that if no democracy exists in a Socialist period, power will fall in revisionist hands.

[Tower of Bebel]

Btw, The most radical fase of the Athenian democracy did cost a hell of a lot, which was at the expence of its allies. Money that was given to defend the alliance against Sparta was used to pay those lower class representatives who got elected during the most radical fase of this democracy.
Normally only a land/slave owner could become a politician since he had enough slaves to sustain him. Lower class representatives couldn't sustain themselves so therefor money was used form other funds.

[Kitskits]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:51 am
Btw, The most radical fase of the Athenian democracy did cost a hell of a lot, which was at the expence of its allies. Money that was given to defend the alliance against Sparta was used to pay those lower class representatives who got elected during the most radical fase of this democracy.
Normally only a land/slave owner could become a politician since he had enough slaves to sustain him. Lower class representatives couldn't sustain themselves so therefor money was used form other funds.
Sound to me very much like bourgeois democracy.

[Colonello Buendia]

though by no means perfect, Athenian Democracy was the lesser of many evils.. in many ways the Athenians were closer to socialism than alot of nations nowadays unfortunately they chose not to have a universal vote thus negating their progress

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Dr [email protected] 25, 2007 09:29 pm
though by no means perfect, Athenian Democracy was the lesser of many evils.. in many ways the Athenians were closer to socialism than alot of nations nowadays unfortunately they chose not to have a universal vote thus negating their progress
Comrade, socialism is not a term used to describe how a government is elected or how decisions are made.

It is a term to describe the relationship between workers and their means of production.

True, I think that the only form of communism is one in which workers democratically make decisions about their workplace. But it is a fundamental change in the economic system. Hence even if workers elected a person to receive profit for the next three years would scarcely make a difference. Private property would still exist.

We want to get rid of bosses, not elect them.

All that being said, the Paris Commune was far more democratic than Athenian 'democracy.'

That certainly is a decent model to follow.

[Kitskits]

Hitler was closer to Socialism than Pinochet. If they were in the same era and Hitler was the most left-wing, does it make Hitler someone worthy of attention?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:04 pm
Hitler was closer to Socialism than Pinochet. If they were in the same era and Hitler was the most left-wing, does it make Hitler someone worthy of attention?
look, all I'm trying to point out is that Athens brought about a culture and a philosophical mindset that would eventually lead to communist/anarchism. Furthermore; the myraid writings by such Athenians such as Xenophon and Thucydides give us an insight into class struggle in the 4th Century BC.

Sorry if that's not good enough; my apologies for applying a Marxist anlyasis to the ancient world.

Also in your Pinochet/Hitler is leftist world, I was the most leftwing; STUDY MEEEEEEE

[Kitskits]

Sorry if that's not good enough; my apologies for applying a Marxist anlyasis to the ancient world.

On the contrary, marxist analysis should be done always. The only thing I am criticizing is this ancient-sources-of-communism idolizing. Because if we start hailing the origins of the origins of the origins, we end up in less and less important things. Don't misunderstand I'm not saying less and less historically important, I'm saying less and less important for the development of communism. Yes, they boosted the speed at which society evolved but they are quantitative bullshit. Marx is the qualitative change in politics/economics.

It's the exact mistake done by some reformist leftists who believe that the best democracy (if somehow realised today in one state) is by itself a step towards socialism (some of them are actually afraid to say the word communism).

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

So democracy is irrelevant in a communist state? people should only have economic equality, not political equality?

[Luís Henrique]

The main problem with trying to find "ancient roots of socialism" is that it poses the question: but was there something as "ancient capitalism"? Because
a) if we think so, we are in the way to convince ourselves that capitalism is in fact eternal, and not the product of social conditions that only prevailed from the XVIII century on; and
b) if we believe the contrary, then we are fantasising a "socialism" that is not the product of class struggle under a capitalist society, but some kind of abstract a-historic "principle".

Both positions are unmaterialistic.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The following text, by Hal Draper, is useful to understand what exactly "ancient socialism" was:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/1-ancestors.htm

On the issue of ancient Athens, Sparta, and Rome, reading Ellen Meiksins Wood's "Democracy against Capitalism" is possibly enlightening.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

While the Ancients did not have capitalism, I believe that some people strove for a kind of proto-communism (i.e. a very early form) as it is our natural state as social beings; to strive for harmony and equality. While there was not capitalism there was still class struggle, the proles were still repressed by the leaders of society. Class struggle can be seen during the end of the peloponesian war, when the Spartan oligarchic puppet government is overthrown by the democratic masses.

Although capitalism did not exist yet, the rich still keep the poor down, and considered them 'weak' (as can be seen in the Old Oligarch by pesuedo-Xenophon). A clear class system was in place; based on wealth.

[spartan]

The only thing wrong with Athenian Democracy was its voting limitations (Discrimination against certain parts of society such as slaves and women who werent allowed to vote).

Apart from that it was a very good example of a Direct Democratic governing system that shouldnt be knocked just because it didnt include sections of society who, in ancient times, werent expected to get involved in politics due to the lifestyle that they were expected to live.

[Holden Caulfield]

that and the whole slavery thing,

[Luís Henrique]

While the Ancients did not have capitalism, I believe that some people strove for a kind of proto-communism (i.e. a very early form) as it is our natural state as social beings;

I don't think there is something as a "natural state" for us.

There might well be some distorted remembrance of a "Golden Age" that could be construed as primitive communism; but this was never a coherent program, nor it was even remotely exequible in pre-capitalist times.


to strive for harmony and equality.

I also don't think that communism, properly understood, has anything to do with "harmony".


While there was not capitalism there was still class struggle,

Sure, but it was not class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat.


the proles were still repressed by the leaders of society.

No, because there were no "proles" at that time; there were peasants, indentured servants, slaves, artisans, and a whole lot of other oppressed classes; but no proletariat. Workers in pre-capitalist societies were never severed from the means of production; on the contrary, they were so intimately tied to them that the only way the exploiters of the past had to fully own means of production was to reduce workers to property: slavery. A proletarian, on the contrary, is someone completely dispossessed of means of production; someone who can only live by renting his/her labour force to an owner of means of production.


Class struggle can be seen during the end of the peloponesian war, when the Spartan oligarchic puppet government is overthrown by the democratic masses.

Sure. But the political program of such democratic uprisal was never socialist; on the contrary, it was based in the restoration of full private property for the lower layers of the dominant class, against the forms of conditional property that the pro-Sparta fifth column certainly favoured.


Although capitalism did not exist yet, the rich still keep the poor down, and considered them 'weak' (as can be seen in the Old Oligarch by pesuedo-Xenophon). A clear class system was in place; based on wealth.

A class system based on wealth, but not on capital or its reproduction.

Luís Henrique

[Forward Union]

in the year 500B.C. the Athenian noble Solon began a political experiment that would have lasting repercussions forever, he began to take Athens on the long a stony road to democracy, however, it was not the 'representative' democracy of the arrogant and uptight Romans, or the modern day bourgeoisies, it was direct democracy, with all citizens taking part, and able to stand for any position; in my opinion it was the first and last democratic state.

Only about 10% of the population could actually vote though. Women, Slaves, Servents, Beggers, Blacks, Atheists, and anyone without land or significant wealth, could not vote.

Interestingly, a faction appeard that challenged this, which I read in "The History of Anarchism" (which u can get on amazon) called The Anarcheons, who used terrorist means to try and extend democracy to all people by attacking the privelleged few who had the right to vote.