Duo Maxwell
HeavenlyPossumThe US constitution was drafted by a cabal of wealthy slavers and landed aristocrats who repeatedly announced “we hate democracy because poor people might vote to not be exploited by us anymore” and crafted a political system to ensure their perpetual class rule and people are really unsure how the US could have ended up in the situation it’s in now.
Liberals in my mentions are working overtime to reconcile “Trump is a fascist dictator” with “the US constitution is good actually” as if he just came out of nowhere and suddenly found himself with absolute power over the state.
Me: the US constitution is anti-democratic
A liberal: um I’m not sure you know what democracy means, it comes from the Greek for “rule of the people”
Me: yes that’s explicitly how I’m using the term
A liberal: um you should know that no one else uses it that way
I remain immensely grateful to anarchism in general and all of you folks out there who have taught me about it. Anarchism is like a conceptual knife that lets us cut through all of this contradictory bullshit that so befuddles even the best-intentioned liberal and see things for how they actually work.
Violet MadderI was listening to several episodes of Andrewism while cleaning yesterday.
So soothing. Stuff that makes ACTUAL SENSE, like a balm to my poor beleaguered and sizzling brain.
Plague Island Resistance@HeavenlyPossum today's lesson: don't waste words on liberals.
Davey@HeavenlyPossum obivously, it was too woke.
Sharp Leaves@HeavenlyPossum You're oversimplifying a lot by lumping all non-modern-democratic ideas into the same basket.
There is a distinction between the democracy of the landed gentry, with all of its flaws and inequities, and out and out oligarchy.
And it's right to point out that their acceptance of slavery and their exploitative attitude towards 'the mob' is in contradiction of their stated ideals.
The US founding fathers were hypocrites, not oligarchs (also worshipping them is weird, America).
If “landed and slave owning elites who monopolized political and economic power for themselves as a class” don’t constitute an oligarchy, I don’t know what would.
Aristocrats taking turns ruling over a subject population is not “democracy of the landed gentry” because it is not democracy at all.
@HeavenlyPossum Your definition of 'democracy' is unhistorically narrow, and 'aristocrat' too wide. Democracy is a system, not a synonym for 'equal, righteous goverment'.
'Demos' + 'kratia' = rule by the people. 'The people' meant 'our kind of people', and excluded many. The franchise has since expanded, which is good.
'Oligos' + 'arkia' = rule by the few, fossilised concentration of power in the hands of a group.
There can be overlap, but you're bending the words to make your point.
No, I am using these words carefully and precisely. The concept of “rule by the people” is incompatible with “rule by some of the people.”
And casting periodic ballots for aristocrats competing in a popularity contest can, in no way, be said to constitute *rule* by the community of ballot casters, regardless of how expansive the franchise is.
Magnus Ahltorp@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider If “rule of the people” has to mean that everyone situated/living in a specific area is eligible to vote, I agree that it is the way it should be, but it’s also a non-helpful definition when discussing the specific flaws in American form of government compared to other countries, since it’s not the case in any country in the world.
Do you really imagine that periodically casting ballots for elites competing to rule you for various periods of time meaningfully constitutes democracy, in the sense of “people ruling themselves”?
I am also unaware of any polity that permits everyone living within its borders to vote in elections in that polity.
You don't seem to distinguish between 'democracy' and 'good democracy'. Years of US sloganeering about democracy are to blame, but by itself it's only a system. You have to work for the equality and justice parts.
It's like saying 'how can you call this a 6 cylinder engine, it's so slow' - It has 6 cylinders and it's an engine, any more than that and you're talking about quality.
Again, no. I am using the term “democracy” in its most literal sense—rule by the people or people ruling themselves.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp You are using your own individualised definition of democracy, as opposed to the definitions already used over thousands of years.
Is there any country today that is democratic, by your standards? If not, you might need another word to capture the purity of your intent.
No, I’m using the word in as precise and literal a sense as I possibly can—rule by the people.
There are no states that are democratic, because the state is incompatible with democracy.
@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider If only members of the “elites” are possible to vote for, then that is a very valid criticism. But it’s unhelpful if even one person not being able to vote is disqualifying all other efforts to make democracy happen.
In Swedish local elections “everyone” is eventually able to vote. The reason for the quotes is that you might get thrown out before that or become undocumented. But it is still not everyone (because of the caveats above, and because it takes time).
I have a strong hunch that not everyone can vote in Swedish local elections. Children? Non-citizens?
But again: being able to periodically cast a vote for someone else to make decisions for you does not constitute “people ruling themselves,” any more than US or Roman or Venetian aristocrats are or were “democratic” because some of them held office through elections.
The Holy Roman Emperor was an elected position. We would not consider the Holy Roman Empire a democracy, even though it held periodic elections, and this would not have changed through a gradual expansion of the number of prince-electors.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp here you're taking issue with representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, at least using conventional terminology.
I'm not the biggest fan of every aspect of representative democracy, especially since a lot of those systems are getting pretty rusty, with two party politics and abuse of electorate boundaries being common problems.
What would you suggest as an alternative?
I am an anarchist; I suggest anarchism, ie, democracy.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp That makes a lot more sense than how you were putting it before.
No criticism against anarchism at all, but that's not what most people mean when they're talking about democracy.
Yes, most people, like you, use the term sloppily.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp If we're getting into the ad hominem stage of things:
You know exactly what democracy means by every academic and practical definition, and you know that what you are saying when you use the word isn't what a lot of people hear.
Practicing mental reservation doesn't exactly engender trust.
For most people, “periodically voting for which aristocrat will rule them for a given period of time” is what constitutes democracy, alongside some general sense that democracy is the process by which a community makes decisions together.
The conflation of these two very unlike phenomena is largely the result of centuries’ of work by elites to convince people of this.
I accused you of being sloppy because you are. You opened this conversation by accusing me of manipulating definitions, and yet I’ve been explicitly and consistently using the term in its most literal sense (which you condescendingly tooted at me above)—unlike you.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp
So more or less, when pressed you agree that you're defining the word differently to everyone else.
I didn't intend to be condescending, I like to think I would have been funnier if I was doing it on purpose.
Out of curiosity, how do you deal with those people who quote definitions of anarchy meaning 'creates chaos? A terrorist? That's what the dictionary says!'
We’ve entered the realm of sealioning, and I’ve run out of patience for you.
@BoysenberryCider @HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp
When certain terms have been aggressively warped, hijacked, and re-defined by relentless propaganda a la 1984, there just might be a bit of a problem with how most people are using those words...
Paw-1|426Ad hominem: "You're wrong because you're part of this unreliable group".
Not ad hominem: "You're doing a common mistake."
In Internet debate club, ad hominem has come to mean “you’re insulting me”
Debate pests: comes condescendingly into the discussion and flood posts with sealioning and passive-aggressive comments.
Also debate pets: How dare you be mean to me? This is literally a logical fallacy.
I think a lot of them genuinely do not register how badly they are behaving. Insulting, condescending, dismissive, and then absolutely lose their shit at the first whiff of someone doing it to them.
@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider Children are included in the “eventually”. Non-citizens can vote in local and regional elections after a fixed number of years (unless they are deported before that, which is an increasing problem with the current government situation).
National elections are only open for citizens, which is a big problem when you have a government that opposes non-hereditary citizenship and naturalisation.
And as you are saying, being able to vote is not enough for democracy.
So not everyone can vote, and voting doesn’t constitute democracy. Glad we could agree!
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp
1. I just say the words, you take them how you will.
2. Okay, do you see a difference between preventing tyranny of the majority and ensuring elite rule? As I mentioned, Montesquieu wasn't thinking of elite privelege when he came up with Separation of Powers.
3. Yes, since it's so obvious, please point out a few offending sections. I'm a simple man, and know not of what I speak.
There has never been a “tyranny of the majority.” It has never once operationally exists. It does, however, serve as an excellent bogeyman for justifying elite rule to people like you, as a bulwark against this alleged threat.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Boogeyman or not, it was a primary concern of the architects of modern democracy when they were conceiving of post-feudal structures.
Also, no such thing as tyranny of the majority? Take the way LGBTQ people have been treated from the conception of our countries until now, that is the definition of tyranny of the majority.
The majority, through ignorance, supported homophobia and it was encoded deeply in law.
The majority are no more pure than any individual is.
Sure—in the sense (for example, see Federalist #10) that the most consistent and important majority was “the poor.”
Elites were terrified that granting power to the majority—the poor—would allow them to abolish exploitation by the rich.
There is not and never has been a political system in which the majority holds power over the minority. The US is not and never has been ruled by a majority of its public, in any sense.
Please go away now.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Sure, I'm gone! That last point was quite good. Quibbling aside, I wish you well, and I'm glad that there are strong willed advocates for change around like you! Stay well, and keep doing good.
@BoysenberryCider @HeavenlyPossum Who are “the architects of modern democracy” and when were they “conceiving of post-feudal structures”? Are we talking about Mary Wollstonecraft and her husband?
At the request of @HeavenlyPossum I'm giving it a break, but if you're interested, tag me in a discussion elsewhere.
I'll put a clarification and leave it there: I meant Montesquieu, Voltaire and the philosophers influential amongst French and American revolutionaries, and were used to defend against the idea that democracy was lawlessness, as spoken by contemporary monarchists (I'm less familiar with others but I know there are more).
@ahltorp said it exactly.
Wide franchise and social equality are good things, and we should want them. But they're not synonyms with democracy, except in US propaganda.
The main thrust of your argument, that the US has been compromised since economic dependence slavery, is correct. All of the US's racial ills flow from that wound, and its economic disparity is closely related.
That's not the consitution, it's the country (also see Britain and Europe & colonialism)
See also the constant thirst for cheap labour to exploit, whether that be prisoners, illegal immigrants etc., it's all to retain a balance first calibrated in the days of slavery (or of Empire).
Every time that cheap labour gets taken away, capital thinks it's losing something, because they don't realise what the golden age they're harking back to was built on.
“US elites depended on slavery and were constantly thirsty for cheap labour to exploit but didn’t bother structuring their polity’s basic laws to promote their interests” sure is a take.
Yes, humans are complex. They can profess virtue while not being virtuous, and that's exactly what they did. They should have been better people and lived up to what they wrote, but they didn't. Happens all the time.
What a strange response.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Thanks, I try 😀
I mean “strange” as in “incoherent.” I don’t understand how it follows from the previous conversation, in which I had been arguing that early US elites wrote their class interests into the constitution. You objected to that argument, but your response reads as if you think *I* was suggesting early US elites were virtuous.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Quite the opposite.
You're suggesting the document is evil because the US elites were evil, more or less.
Does that capture your point fairly?
I'm suggesting the document they wrote was pretty good, but the country it was managing was complicit in evil things and the problem comes from the second part.
No. I am, again, unsure of why you are trying to divine some hidden meaning behind my plain words:
Early US elites wrote the constitution to ensure their perpetual class rule.
It turns out that’s precisely what happened!
I’m not sure how that could be considered “good” or how you could conclude that they were too stupid to take into consideration their class interests when writing the constitution, especially considering that they recorded their quite explicit intent to ensure their perpetual class rule.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Okay. Firstly, when did they define themselves as a priveleged class?
Secondly, where was the privelege that did exist in pre-20th century franchise limited to something that could be called an elite?
Thirdly, what part of the modern document continues to enforce that rule?
- Repeatedly throughout their works. Hamilton and Madison were the most explicit, and I’d point to Federalist #10 as among the clearest anti-democracy texts they published. If you’re interested in more, I’d recommend Michael Klarman’s “The Founders’ Coup,” which documents this far more exhaustively than I could in a toot.
- I never said the franchise was the problem—setting aside, of course, the fact that the national franchise was restricted to white adult male citizens and many state franchises were further restricted by property qualifications. If you’re unsure why I would identify early US elites—mostly hereditary slave and plantation owners—as *privileged,* we might have to do some remedial work on what privilege entails.
- All of it.
1, thanks, I'll check it out!
2, okay. What's the link between your conception of their protection of class privelege and flaws in their idea of democracy?
Also, my point was 'how was that political privelege limited to an elite group in the law?' Does that phrasing clarify my point?
3. That's not how laws work. It's not a holy/unholy relic, it's a law that defines the rights and limitations of government. What's the particular issue with those rights/limitations?
1. I’m skeptical you will.
2. Since I don’t know what you think “their idea of democracy” is, I don’t know how to answer this question. In a broad sense, early US elites agreed with my definition of democracy and they explicitly rejected it as a threat to their rule.
I already noted the various constitutional mechanisms they implemented to ensure their rule—the senate, the Supreme Court, the electoral college, the presidency, etc etc.
3. You’re unsure of what’s wrong with the US constitution now, in 2025?
@BoysenberryCider @HeavenlyPossum 2. Privilege can be explicit, implicit or both. It doesn’t have to say “it should be hard for poor people to vote”, you just have to have laws that in practice make it hard for poor people to vote, like registration and having the elections on one day only (that just so happens to be on a day when most people are working).
3. Almost all Americans I’ve heard talking about the American constitution regards it as a holy relic. They even swear by it!
Nope, the US constitution was explicitly and specifically structured in ways to make the state unresponsive to the public. Life tenures for judges, a bicameral legislature and long terms in office for senators, the electoral college, a strong executive with veto powers—these were all *explicitly* anti-democratic.
And that is *precisely and explicitly* how these elites framed their goals in their discourse. Early US elites were disgusted by and terrified of the public in general and democracy.
Those are not unique to the US, they stem from Montesquieu, and are designed to prevent capture of Government by any one arm. The legislature is supposed to be most responsive to the populace, and the judiciary the least (with its governmental powers limited to oversight). For example, you mentioned lifetime tenure for judges - to me, the US's practice of electing judges is absolute insanity and is just begging for a non-partisan office to become partisan.
The funniest thing about this conversation is that early elites wrote down their intent to design a system that was anti-democratic, in the sense of preventing the public from governing itself, in explicit terms, and all I am doing is conveying what they honestly and openly confessed to.
I never suggested that hostility to democracy was somehow unique to the US. You’re trying really hard to divine what I’m *really* trying to say when I’m being quite open and precise here.
@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp Something that might help you make some sense of this, - check out some books on government written by non-US authors.
I'd especially recommend anything that covers the Separation of Powers.
It might make sense of what I'm going on about. Sometimes US sources have a bit of a 'the alphabet was used to write the declaration of independence, so what were the founders thinking when they q look like a backwards p? Let's find out' vibe.
I assure you that I am familiar with a wide range of scholarship on politics and governance.
@BoysenberryCider @HeavenlyPossum
"There is a distinction between the democracy of the landed gentry, with all of its flaws and inequities, and out and out oligarchy."
*looks around at inequality WORSE than what they had in France when the guillotines rolled out, legislation that only answers the will of the people 10% of the time, a billionaire tossing the reins of the Social Security system over for kids to play with, while the world burns*
Oh? A distinction, you say?? That sounds nice.