What is democracy? Since this deceptively easy question first got here into my thoughts, I haven’t been capable of shake it. We expect we perceive the phrase, but what are we really referring to once we speak about a system through which the individuals rule themselves?
The phrase democracy is all around us, invoked in virtually every conceivable context: government, enterprise, know-how, schooling, and media. At the similar time, its which means, taken as self-evident, is never given a lot critical consideration. Though the headlines inform us democracy is in “crisis,” we don’t have a transparent conception of what it’s that is at risk. The significance of the democratic superb, as well as its sensible substance, is surprisingly elusive.
For most of my life, the phrase democracy didn’t hold a lot attraction. I was in fact never towards democracy per se, but phrases reminiscent of justice, equality, freedom, solidarity, socialism, and revolution resonated extra deeply. Democracy struck me as mealy-mouthed, even debased. That idealistic anarchists and authoritarian leaders are equally inclined to say “democracy” as their own only demonstrated its lack of depth. North Korea does, in any case, name itself a “Democratic People’s Republic,” and Iraq was invaded by the U.S. Army within the identify of bringing democracy to the Center East. But at the moment I not see the opportunistic use of the phrase as an indication of the thought’s vapidity. These powers co-opt the concept of democracy because they understand that it represents a profound menace to the established order, a menace they desperately hope to include.
After making a documentary movie, What Is Democracy?, I now perceive the concept’s disorienting vagueness and protean character as a source of power; I’ve come to simply accept, and even respect, that there isn’t any single definition I can stand behind that feels unconditionally conclusive. Though the apply has in depth international roots, the phrase democracy comes to us from historic Greece, and it conveys a seemingly simple concept: the individuals (demos) rule or maintain power (kratos). Democracy is the promise of the individuals ruling, but a promise that can never be wholly fulfilled because its implications and scope maintain altering. Over centuries our conceptions of democracy have expanded and advanced, with democracy turning into extra inclusive and strong in many ways, yet who counts as the individuals, how they rule, and the place they achieve this remain eternally up for debate. Democracy destabilizes its own legitimacy and objective by design, subjecting its core elements to continual examination and scrutiny.
Good democracy, I’ve come to consider, might not in truth exist and never will, but that doesn’t imply we will’t make progress toward it, or that what there’s of it could possibly’t disappear. Because of this, I’m extra satisfied than ever that the questions of what democracy is—and, more necessary, what it could possibly be—are ones we should perpetually ask.
Proper now, many who query democracy achieve this out of disillusionment, worry, and outrage. Democracy might not exist, but it still manages to disappoint. Political gridlock, corruption, unaccountable representatives, and the shortage of meaningful options incense individuals across the ideological spectrum; their anger simmers at dehumanizing paperwork, blatant hypocrisy, and lack of voice. Leaders usually are not accountable and voters rightly feel their decisions are restricted, all while the rich maintain getting richer and common individuals scramble to outlive. In superior democracies all over the world, a growing number of individuals aren’t even bothering to vote—a right many individuals fought and died for fairly just lately. Most People will say that they reside in a democracy, but few will say that they trust the government, while the state usually evokes damaging reactions, ranging from frustration to contempt and suspicion. The state of affairs calls to thoughts Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s statement from The Social Contract: “In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies; under a bad government no one cares to stir a step to get to them. . . . As soon as any man says of the State What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost.”1
A cauldron of causes generates an atmosphere of corrosive cynicism, social fragmentation, and unease, with blame too typically directed downward at the most weak populations. And it’s not simply in america. Think about the United Kingdom vote to go away the European Union, the decision generally known as Brexit; the resurgence of right-wing populism across Europe; coups and reactionary electoral victories in Brazil; and the rise of fascism in India. Plato’s warning about democracy devolving into tyranny rings chillingly prophetic. The promise of self-rule risks turning into not a promise but a curse, a self-destructive motor pushing toward destinations more risky, divided, despotic, and mean.
But this ebook isn’t concerning the pitfalls of fashionable sovereignty, though it definitely has its perils. Nor is it concerning the shortcomings of current liberal democratic political methods or the methods they have been corrupted by cash and energy—although they’ve been. That’s a story that has been informed earlier than, and whereas it is going to be the backdrop to my inquiry it isn’t the main target. This ebook, as an alternative, is an invitation to think about the phrase democracy from numerous angles, wanting again by means of history and reflecting on the philosophy and apply of self-rule in hopes that a extra contemplative view will shed useful mild on our current predicament. My objective is not to negate the sense of alarm nor deter individuals from action but to remind us that we’re part of an extended, complicated, and still-unfolding chronicle, regardless of the day’s headlines may be or whoever governs the nation.
Taking a more theoretical strategy to democracy’s winding, thorny path and inherently paradoxical nature also can provide solace and reassurance. Ruling ourselves has never been simple and never can be. Ever vexing and unpredictable, democracy is a process that includes infinite reassessment and renewal, not an endpoint we attain before taking a relaxation (leaving us with a finished system to tweak on the margins). As such, this guide is my admittedly unorthodox, idiosyncratic call to democratize society from the bottom to the top. It can also be an expression of my perception that we can’t rethink democracy if we haven’t really considered it in the first place.
One thing I’ve discovered is that the people who are most averse to deepening democracy know exactly why they despise it (Plato, who helped invent political philosophy by railing towards democracy, arguably started the development.) A political science major advised me that she doesn’t value democracy a lot. “The phrase that inspires me,” she stated, “is the American dream and that ability to climb.” Opportunity mattered to her and her pals more than inclusion. I anticipated them to see democracy and capitalism as mutually reinforcing; as an alternative, they perceived the two to be at odds in key respects: democratic calls for, whether or not for progressive taxation or for liberal immigration policies, would diminish their social and financial distinction.
“In capitalism, there are going to be people at the bottom,” one young man enthused, confident of his place at the prime and cognizant that his place was antidemocratic. Members of a privileged economic minority, these college students recognized that impediments to widespread sovereignty (such as the Electoral School, which handed two of the last 5 presidential elections to a candidate who had lost the favored vote) have been vital for the continued dominance of their class. (James Madison had as a lot in mind when he promoted the concept the Senate ought to shield the “invaluable interests” of “opulent” landlords towards expropriation by the extra numerous plenty.)
As a lot as I disagree with the scholars’ beliefs, this right-wing place is at the very least the consequence of honest, if self-centered, consideration. In contrast, many people who say they worth democracy have a remarkably troublesome time defending the principle in a meaningful or substantive approach. Platitudes routinely eclipse extra profound or personal reflection: democracy quantities to “free and fair” elections, “the peaceful transfer of power,” or “freedom,” pure and easy. Through the course of of creating my movie, no one I met on the street advised that democracy was a steady means of egalitarian inclusion and energy sharing made attainable by tireless agitators, despite the fact that that’s a respectable if long-winded approach to outline it. Nor did anybody reply with the classical description, that democracy is the rule of the individuals. (Though I did come throughout quite a few men who, once they realized how little they really needed to say on the subject, informed me, authoritatively, that because of the genius of the founding fathers America shouldn’t be truly a democracy but a republic, as if that have been sufficient to stop any further inquiry.)
We might conclude that individuals who wrestle to discuss such an integral part of recent life are simply ignorant or perhaps too distracted to be engaged, but I’m unsure it’s that straightforward. The issue stems, I consider, from that proven fact that democracy is one thing individuals not often encounter in their on a regular basis lives: definitely not in the course of the media- and celebrity-obsessed, money-driven circus of nationwide elections; nor at their jobs, where they’re typically handled like replaceable cogs in a machine and need to maintain their heads down; nor at their faculties or schools, the place they are encouraged to see themselves as shoppers looking for a return on funding quite than as residents getting ready to participate within the widespread good. For all our lauded freedoms, democracy isn’t something we truly expertise all that a lot. No marvel, then, that folks can barely describe it.
Sometimes, democracy is taken into account to consist of one individual, one vote, exercised in periodic elections; constitutional rights; and a market financial system. On paper no less than, there isn’t a shortage of states that conform to this quite limited conception—by some estimates, eighty-one nations moved from authoritarianism to democracy between 1980 and 2002. But current studies reveal that democracy, outlined by the preceding attributes, has weakened worldwide during the last decade or so. In accordance with one well-respected annual report, seventy-one nations suffered internet declines in political rights and civil liberties in 2017, leading to an general decrease in international freedom.2 In early 2018, the Economist warned, “Democracy Continues Its Disturbing Retreat”—this not long after the journal’s yearly Democracy Index officially downgraded the USA from a “full democracy” to a “flawed” one.three
Yet democracy doesn’t retreat either of its own accord or by some organic, immutable process. It is eroded, undermined, attacked, or allowed to wither. It falls into disrepair and disrepute because of the actions or inaction of human beings who have misplaced touch with or, in some instances, sabotaged the duties and prospects that a system of self-government entails. While at present it’s widespread responsible extremists for jeopardizing democracy, research show that across Europe and america it is middle-of-the-road centrists who tend to carry probably the most hostile attitudes toward democratic practices, preferring robust and effective centralized determination making to messier, more inclusive processes. Lower than half of People who determine with the political middle view elections as “an essential feature of democracy” and only half of them, or 25 % of centrists, agree that civil rights are crucial.four Apathy, or even antipathy, toward self-government and the troublesome every day work it requires is among the stones that help pave the best way to a more authoritarian society. That apathy is helped by the fact that the American system was never designed to be democratic to start with.
As with many different liberalizing nations of the late eighteenth century, the republic didn’t think about nearly all of its residents to be members of the polity. Enslaved and indigenous individuals, all ladies, poor white males, certain immigrants, and a few spiritual groups have been denied rights, including probably the most primary right of citizenship, the fitting to forged a ballot. These founding inequities, only fitfully and incompletely redressed, continue to shape our present. As numerous educational studies show, the nationwide agenda is about by plutocrats and well-represented interests, while the preferences of the broad inhabitants have nearly no influence on public policy. The inequalities that plague us immediately usually are not an aberration nor the result of whichever celebration occurs to be in energy, but a believable results of the political system’s very design, which in crucial methods was devised by a restricted and privileged class of males.
In the fifth century BC, the celebrated statesman Pericles famously praised the political structure of Athens: “It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few.” Given the existence of slavery and the exclusion of girls, Athens failed to satisfy the bar by trendy standards. Yet as Plato and Aristotle noted, the overwhelming majority of people who made up the Athenian demos were not wealthy. Rule of the individuals, they observed, by definition means rule of the poor, since residents of modest means are sure to vastly outnumber the rich.
This primary insight has been negated in our time as neoliberal capitalism and the huge financial inequities it creates dismantle hard-won democratic positive factors. Beneath a authorized order the place money qualifies as speech in the context of marketing campaign spending and lobbying, the richest are capable of buy influence while everyone else struggles to be heard; in a system the place the prosperous can cross their belongings to their offspring nearly untaxed, inherited wealth ensures the creation of an aristocratic class. If the last fifty years has demonstrated something, it is that formal political equality, exemplified by the correct to vote, isn’t enough to make sure democracy, as the rich have many avenues to exert disproportionate energy. Whereas earlier generations targeted on expanding suffrage, immediately we face an arguably more formidable process: saving democracy from capitalism. Extending democracy from the political to the economic sphere is the good problem of our age, and in addition the one strategy to shield political equality from the concentrated monetary power that’s proving to be its undoing.
A mere eight males—six of them American—hold the identical quantity of wealth as half the individuals on earth, their personal fortunes built on mass penury.5 America, perhaps unsurprisingly, is extra an oligarchy than a democracy. Yr upon yr, the overwhelming majority of the revenue generated globally flows into the pockets of the highest 1 % of the world’s population, whereas the incomes of strange residents have stagnated during the last four many years.6 Whereas an American born in the 1940s had a 92 % probability of outearning his or her mother and father by age thirty, for these born within the 1980s, that probability has fallen to 50 %; in some locations in the Midwest, the chances are worse. A current Federal Reserve survey revealed that nearly half of People are too broke to cover a four-hundred-dollar emergency expense, they usually must sell possessions or borrow money to take action.7
Much more surprising, given the veneration of the achievements of the civil rights movement, is that there was no progress for black People with regard to unemployment, homeownership, and incarceration because the push for racial equality reached its peak fifty years ago. Because the Economic Coverage Institute reviews, “In 2017 the black unemployment rate was 7.5 percent, up from 6.7 percent in 1968, and is still roughly twice the white unemployment rate. In 2015, the black homeownership rate was just over 40 percent, virtually unchanged since 1968, and trailing a full 30 points behind the white homeownership rate, which saw modest gains over the same period. And the share of African Americans in prison or jail almost tripled between 1968 and 2016 and is currently more than six times the white incarceration rate.”8 The monetary disaster of 2008, which wiped out half the wealth of black households, contributed to this grim state of affairs.9 Yet, in the present day, one of many few bipartisan points uniting Democrats and Republicans in Washington includes repealing the meager Wall Road reforms passed following the crash.10 There may be elections and a few safeguards of civil liberties, and we should always be thankful for this, but the state is hardly run by or for the individuals it purports to serve.11
The forces of oligarchy have been enabled, partially, by our tendency to simply accept a highly proscribed notion of democracy, one that limits in style power to the sector of electoral politics, ignoring the other establishments and buildings (workplaces, prisons, faculties, hospitals, the surroundings, and the financial system itself) that shape individuals’s lives. This can be a mistake. To be substantive and powerful, democracy can’t be one thing that happens solely in capitol buildings; self-rule needs to be much more widespread. If we consider that democracy should serve all of society, how can we name ourselves democratic when staff juggle multiple jobs as record-breaking income circulate to house owners and buyers? When tens of millions of individuals, disproportionately poor and other people of shade, are locked behind bars? When entry to studying and lifesaving remedies are denied to those who can’t pay? When the planet may be rendered uninhabitable so that a small number of corporations can maximize revenues from fossil fuels? When the worldwide 1 % are on monitor to regulate two-thirds of the world’s wealth by 2030?12 We will view these points as distinct and unrelated, or we will understand them as basically interconnected, as joint symptoms of the truth that these with cash, not “the many,” rule.
When we to stop to ask what democracy means, we’ll notice that a good variety of the practical and philosophical issues plaguing us usually are not exactly novel; they’re as previous as democracy itself. The challenges are timeless: Is democracy a way or an finish, a process or a set of finite outcomes? What if those outcomes, no matter they could be (peace, prosperity, sustainability, equality, liberty, an engaged citizenry), may be achieved by nondemocratic means? If democracy means rule by the individuals, what’s the nature and extent of that rule and who counts as “the people”? We might imagine we are on the leading edge, charting a socially unprecedented course, but the struggle for justice, freedom, and self-rule (and the profound difficulties of realizing these democratic beliefs) necessarily entails grappling with age-old dilemmas anew.
Democracy, the classicist Danielle Allen informed me, is “intellectually hard.” When you stay in a monarchy, you’ll be able to point to an image of the king or queen and know that that’s the one that guidelines. But in the event you stay in a democracy, there’s nothing to point to, in a concrete means, that conveys the concept the individuals are in charge. “The very notion of a democratic people is an abstract conceptualization,” Allen defined. “You have to understand what is this ‘people’? How can you have justice when you have something making decisions that doesn’t seem to quite exist?” Democracy demands everybody wrestle with these summary questions and concepts.
This demand itself explains why democracy and political philosophy emerged on the similar time in historic Greece: within the absence of a strong tyrant or a cabal of aristocrats making selections from on excessive, democracy requires that folks cause and mirror. Thus, Athens’s large open-air assemblies obliged residents to ask the good Socratic question “How should I live?” collectively. In these exceptional gatherings, hundreds of odd individuals, the demos, have been expected to think about what sort of society they needed to reside in and why. They might ponder, talk about, and determine on legal guidelines, punishment, and whether to go to struggle. In circumstances of a democracy, the onus is on citizens to be inquisitive and to query their very own system of government. The political order turned an object of intensive speculation and critique. (Democracy, in other phrases, made Plato’s antidemocratic musings potential.)13 But what makes democracy so compelling is that it isn’t just abstraction and intellectualization but additionally motion. To be understood, self-rule have to be enacted—it’s thought and conduct, principle and follow, noun and verb in equal measure.
These seeming oppositions are foundational to democracy, which encompasses politics which are both unified and numerous, individualistic and collective, that mix egalitarianism with hierarchy and autonomy with constraint. More than oppositions, these are paradoxes, contradictory parts that, while liable to conflict, must coexist. Probably the most famous paradox of all, the product of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is of the chicken-or-egg selection, addressing the problem of making democratic topics, people who incline toward and are able to democracy. “For an emerging people to be capable of appreciating the sound maxims of politics and to follow the fundamental rules of statecraft, the effect would have to become the cause,” Rousseau mused. “The social spirit which ought to be the work of that institution, would have to preside over the institution itself.”14 Put more plainly, the query is what comes first: the society and establishments that mould democratic residents, cultivating and educating them, or residents who are capable of create such a society and establishments? The paradox is that democracy appears to require, prematurely, the very buildings and sensibilities on which it needs to rely so as to emerge, persist, and thrive.
Democracy is rife with these types of sometimes discordant but indivisible dualities: it all the time has to stability freedom and equality, conflict and consensus, inclusion and exclusion, coercion and choice, spontaneity and construction, expertise and mass opinion, the local and the worldwide, and the current and the longer term. There could be no unambiguous decision on one or the opposite aspect of the binary.
What follows is an inquiry into democracy as a stability of paradoxes, an exploration of opposites, a framework I’ve chosen in hopes of jolting us out of more well-worn paradigms. Little question I’ve failed to include some necessary paradoxes; by design, this ebook might never be conclusive; as philosophy, it asks more questions than it solutions. But one absence particularly is value mentioning: the rich versus the poor. I see no cause to simply accept the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, the proudly owning class and the laboring class, as an inherently needed paradox or an insurmountable reality of society, especially given our technological capabilities and productive capacities.
This brings us to a definition of contradiction: for Karl Marx, a contradiction is a conflict within capitalism (the antagonism between personal property and common wealth, for instance) destined, at some date, to be resolved in such a means as to usher in a brand new financial regime. Marx noticed democracy as “the solved riddle of all constitutions” as a result of in a democracy, “the constitution appears as what it is, the free product of men.”15 In contrast, the paradoxes I’ve recognized do not stand in opposition in a Marxist sense, as a result of they are crucial and irresolvable sides of democratic life. Though I consider that the process of democratization includes shifting toward an equitable distribution of power and assets (what some name socialism), I doubt all riddles will ever be perfectly solved. I goal to point out that present economic inequality intensifies sure sides of the paradoxes I’ve highlighted, growing instability and struggling. Still, it’s my view that even with out capitalist exploitation, democracy would remain messy and conflicted, filled with what Plato referred to as “variety and disorder” (which, regardless of being democracy’s first and most acute critic, he considered part of its appeal).16 Should we ever achieve a totally economically and socially egalitarian society, we’ll nonetheless should attempt to stability spontaneity and structure, for example, or grapple with how greatest to weigh our present-day wishes towards future needs.
By teasing out these conflicts, we’d achieve better perception into why the problem of self-rule is so nice. Certainly, what motivated me to undertake this undertaking was an urge to know why democratic rules are so troublesome to place into apply, a quandary my work as an activist makes me intimately conversant in. Democracy cannot be decreased to a system of legal guidelines to abide, a set of “indicators” to satisfy, or a ten-point proposal to enact but is as an alternative something more emergent and experimental, a mixture of order and flux rooted in both process and precept, modes of production (how we arrange the creation of products essential for our survival) and widespread sentiment. As we shall see, for democracy to continue and rework, the two poles represented by the paradoxes explored in these pages have to be held in considerate, delicate pressure.
Rigidity—that’s the key phrase. Contemplate democracy’s darkish history, from slavery and colonialism to facilitating the emergence of fascism, from the omnipresent menace of nuclear annihilation to the danger posed by local weather change. Think of all of the dangerous selections made by democratic humanity: the disastrous referendums, the egocentric attachment to bigoted beliefs, the cussed refusal to evolve even when our lives trusted it. All this makes democracy a “leap of faith,” as the thinker Cornel West calls it, one which requires “living in the tension,” the strain of paradoxes unresolved and arguably irresolvable. The history of democracy is considered one of oppression, exploitation, demagoguery, dispossesion, domination, horror, and abuse. But additionally it is a history of cooperation, solidarity, deliberation, emancipation, justice, and empathy. Which aspect can we fall on, the place should the emphasis land? Within the last hour, is democracy a lost cause or our last hope?
“There’s always going to be mountains of evidence to convince you that you must be losing your mind if you believe this demos is going to make good decisions,” West informed me. “But on the other hand, you say, lo and behold, so many of the best ideas about how you treat human beings, best ideas about justice, often come from the very folk you thought you had no grounds for trusting in their ability to think and reflect. Cuts both ways. Living in the tension. I think that’s the key.”
I don’t consider democracy exists; certainly, it by no means has. As an alternative, the perfect of self-rule is strictly that, a really perfect, a precept that all the time occupies a distant and retreating horizon, something we must proceed to succeed in toward but fail to understand. The promise of democracy shouldn’t be the one made and betrayed by the highly effective; it’s a promise that can be stored only by regular individuals by way of vigilance, invention, and wrestle. By means of concept and follow, group and open rebel, defending past positive factors and demanding new entitlements, the inspiring potential of self-rule manifests, but it remains fragmentary and fragile, eternally partial and imperiled. In the long run, dwelling within the pressure, embracing the incongruities and prospects of democracy without giving up, is the message of this ebook.
1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract or Rules of Political Proper (1762), ebook three, chap. 15.
2. For a full account learn Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World 2018” report, obtainable at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/free
three. This is based mostly on the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, which charges 167 nations scored on a scale of zero to ten based mostly on sixty indicators. See “Democracy Continues Its Disturbing Retreat,” Economist, January 31, 2018.
four. David Adler, “Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists,” New York Occasions, May 23, 2018.
5. Oxfam International, “Just 8 Men Own Same Wealth as Half the World,” January 16, 2017, https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world.
6. Oxfam Worldwide, “Richest 1 Percent Bagged 82 Percent of Wealth Created Last Year—Poorest Half of Humanity Got Nothing,” January 22, 2018, https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year. A report from the Financial Policy Institute has knowledge on stagnating wages: Lawrence Mishel, Elise Gould, and Josh Bivens, “Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts,” Economic Policy Institute, January 6, 2015, obtainable at https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/.
7. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015,” May 2016, https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf.
8. Janelle Jones, John Schmitt, and Valerie Wilson, “50 Years After the Kerner Commission,” Economic Policy Institute Report, February 26, 2018, https://www.epi.org/publication/50-years-after-the-kerner-commission/.
9. The very fact-checking web site Politifact verified these statistics after presidential candidate Bernie Sanders talked about them through the PBS Democratic debate. Linda Qiu, “Sanders: African-Americans Lost Half Their Wealth Because of Wall Street Collapse,” February 11, 2016, obtainable at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/11/bernie-s/sanders-african-american-lost-half-their-wealth-be/.
10. David Dayen, “Revenge of the Stadium Banks: Instead of Taking on Gun Control, Democrats Are Teaming with Republicans for a Stealth Attack on Wall Street Reform,” Intercept, March 2, 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/03/02/crapo-instead-of-taking-on-gun-control-democrats-are-teaming-with-republicans-for-a-stealth-attack-on-wall-street-reform/.
11. Warfare and national safety are other areas the place there’s various bipartisan collaboration. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments towards America’s claim to be a democracy is the president’s unilateral authority to launch nuclear warheads, an issue that lengthy precedes Trump’s boasting about his supersize “nuclear button.” In 1976, the New York Occasions reported that two years prior, a drunken Nixon had boasted to two congressmen, “At any moment I could go into the next room, push a button, and twenty minutes later sixty million people would be dead.” Terrifyingly, he wasn’t incorrect. That a solitary individual holds such monumental, chic, and murderous power dispels any notion that we reside in something resembling a democratic society.
12. Michael Savage, “Richest 1% on Target to Own Two-thirds of All Wealth by 2030,” Guardian, April 7, 2018.
13. I recommend Ellen Meiksins Wooden’s work on this matter for many who need to study extra, notably the primary chapter of Residents to Lords (Ellen Meiksins Wood, Residents to Lords: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Antiquity to the Middle Ages [London: Verso Books, 2008]).
14. Rousseau, The Social Contract, ebook 2, chap. 7.
15. Karl Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right,’ ” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. three (New York: Worldwide Publishers Co., 2005), p. 29.
16. “Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike” Plato has Socrates say in guide eight of The Republic in Benjamin Jowett’s translation. The entire textual content is on the market at the MIT Internet Classics Archive at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html.
Copyright © 2019 by Astra Taylor