Republic, Democracy, Oligarchy, Socialist State, Marxist-Communist State
What is the identity of the American Political system? What system of governance do these United States live under? What common misconceptions and fallacies do the American people promulgate?
Through defining the terms and looking at the similarities and differences in the types of governance we can define what is and is not America's political identity.
When you ask most Americans what form of government they live under you may get a mix of two different answers, either a Democracy or a Republic. Is that the truth or is it merely what has been sold to them through the years and reinforced by fallacious propaganda?
Merriam Webster defines a Democracy as such:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4 : the common people, especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
We can see from these definitions that America holds some of this in its current form of government. A government by the people, especially rule of the majority can be seen in the voting of issues. These votes usually count towards a majority point where the issue will either be accepted or rejected, based off of this majority. The second point of #1 is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them, directly or indirectly, through a system of REPRESENTATION, usually involving periodically held free elections" This is the basis of both a Democracy and of a Republic, which we will look at later. With this point, we see in our current form that these representatives campaign on promises to do what the majority of the citizens have voiced. But this also raises a question, what becomes of those that voted against this representative? Are they equally represented and are their views expressed in government the same as those that did vote for this person? That answer today is a resounding no, on both the people who voted in favor, and in opposition, to the representative.
Of the other definitions by Webster, we can see some semblance of American politics in them, up to the last definition. In its current model, America's government does more to create arbitrary class distinctions and privileges. Through laws that favor one group over others, and restrict groups to certain acts which are legal and acceptable to all others, regulations that interfere with one business while giving special exceptions to others, through licensing procedures, corporate welfare, cronyism and progressive taxation policies, this democracy is in complete contrast to this definition.
When the pundits and talking heads talk of Democracies, of furthering or installing Democracies around the world, we must ask ourselves this very important question; is the spreading of democracy in it of itself a goal of good governance of the world, or is it simply the goal of governments to be able to control the other governments by helping to erect their shrines of subservience? Why is our government in league with others to dispose of democratically elected officials in order to replace them with others? This seems counter-intuitive to a free election and the protection of the electoral process altogether.
This last point can be made of any Democracy; when any majority stands to take away the rights of any number of minorities, it leads to class distinctions, ruling class versus lower class battles, and a simple breakdown of governments’ ability to govern equally.
What is a Republic and why do people keep calling American Government a Republic? Again, to Merriam-Webster for the technical definition.
1 a (1) : a government having a chief 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
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia
Not too different from a Democracy, being it allows the vote of the majority to elect their ruler and representatives. What is not defined of course is the scope of this republic, its officers, or representatives.
So why do we say America is a Republic? Yes there is a system of voting for representation, just as Democracies have. And yes, it is a form of government. But that is it, that’s as far as it goes. So let’s throw in the term Constitutional. Now we have a Constitutional Republic, let’s see how that differs.
The Constitution of the United States of America was adopted in 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. First it was a contract of governance of the 13 original colonies, and tied their state governments to a federal agreement of terms. It was originally drafted with as a rule to the formation of this constitutional government, setting up practices of choosing a ruler and all other sub-rulers who would enjoy posts for specific amounts of time before having to be voted in again. One point to remember in this is that not every citizen was allowed to vote. Not every person was to gain representation under this constitution or in this Republic. It wasn't until much later that people of color, former slaves, and women were allowed to use their inherent right of voicing opinions of governance. With this information, the dynamic of what a constitutional Republic now changes. Since only a portion of all residents and citizens are given the ability and authority to vote, the words Democracy and Republic lose their definitions. Neither a Democracy nor a Republic, by their definitions, would be in accordance with restricting some people living under it from voting. Currently this practice is allowed to continue; those persons who have been found guilty of certain [felonious] crimes are barred from casting ballots even though they are citizens and are affected by the type and structure of a government they have had no part to either endorse or reject.
One part of this definition stands out to me in particular more than the lot: "A body of citizens who are ENTITLED to vote". Why does this hit me more than the rest? Because it leaves it open on who or what "entitles" these voters. If you notice in the definition of Democracy there is no mention of "Entitlements" being used or given. If this definition had been worded as a right to vote for their governors, their representatives, this could be seen as a correct statement, but as it sits at entitled to vote, this is in error. All people have a right to choose their own masters, their own government. The wording of entitlement, it infers that it is somehow bestowed and that this ability can be taken away arbitrarily; it does not define by whom it is given or can be taken. The natural right for a person to choose a ruler, master, king, representative, or whatever is inherent. Logically, likewise, a man has an inherent right to reject any such governance, and choose to remain absolutely free in his own self. Any force used to render a man under a governance that they themselves did not choose is a violation of their liberty, and a trespass of their sovereignty.
The act of government to regulate and mandate that all persons within any geographical area be subject to their authority, even when such authority is not recognized nor endorsed by that man is a transgression against this man's natural liberty. Any reference that any form of government be structured to protect the liberty of man is in error.
Republics being a favored form of governance throughout history, it stands that they will continue to be favored, despite their inherent fault of reasoning. If the reason for government lies in the supposed inherent evil and immorality of man, it stands that electing certain people of this evil pool will result in no better results than having no government at all. But this belief is not recognized by the majority. The majority believes in the power and authority placed in self-identified evil people to do self-described evils to people in the name of good, and with more admiralty than those that do these same acts on their own.
As Americans are led to believe these two types of government are the only options, and as we can see, it stands as a mixture of both definitions, a Democratic Republic, there are other forms of government that intertwine themselves and lend flavor to this mix. Oligarchy, Communism, and even Socialism are present in the current political structure of the United States.
What is an Oligarchy, and is it good or bad?
To the public, this word is not commonly known, and is not commonly accepted as the current form of government in America. Defined by Merriam-Webster, an Oligarchy is a government by the few, a government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also a group exercising such control or an organization under oligarchic control. This seems to fit a little better into the mold of America's political system. Under oligarchic rule, the minority of those in positions of power dictate rules and regulations for the majority. Under the current American system of government, there is somewhere around 600 people that rule over 315 million; that is Oligarchy, in form. This allows this minority power to skirt rules on themselves, and have no real threat of being removed from power, since they can simply change the rules, or decide again who can and cannot cast votes against them.
Portions of Communism and Socialism show up in the American System, though many do not realize it.
Communism and Socialism, the two big, bad, scary words almost all Americans are afraid of and confused by. Communism affirms the removal of private property, and those goods produced in society shall be available to all as needed. It condones the abolition of privately held companies and corporations, and assumes to give the equal share of its ownership and control to the community to decide best uses of resources and best conditions for distribution. Webster gives differing and contradictory definitions of Communism. It explains Communism as a theory advocating elimination of private property; a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production; and a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. These last two definitions being in contradiction to one another leads to the confusion of what the word and its political theory truly is.
In any system where the means and resources for production are held by singular entities, waste of resources and class disparity will grow. In any case, a government with this sort of power will itself discover the same ends as the prior failed attempts to bring Communism to large involuntary groups.
One note I make is that, on a small scale, and in a voluntary will, Communism can and does work, so long as it remains voluntary to come into it and to leave from it. Small communes around the world use a very similar model for their structuring and do quite well in a communal living with production for the immediate needs of the community members and their families.
On Socialism:
Socialism and Communism get intertwined and used in conjunction with one another quite often, for good reason. By definition, they are in the same sort of governance in which the state owns and controls the means of production, and private property is abolished. In Marxist theory, though, it lies between Capitalism, the private holding of the means of production, and full Communism, or the abolition of any singular ownership of property. It can be said that it is just one small step from communism.
Under Marxian class theory, the United States has a large lead on its road map to full communism. According to the ten planks originally drawn up by Karl Marx, America has incorporated its political ideologies well into the theory of Full Communism.
So where does this leave the American Political Identity?
So far as we have seen, the American form of government is quite a fair mixture of all the aforementioned structures and theories. America may have been set up as a Republic, Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “A Republic, if you can keep it”, when asked after the Constitutional Convention, of what America shall be run by. But this is quite false, as we have seen, it was set up in a Democratic Republic fashion and has slowly morphed into the beast and burden it is today. No amount of voting will strip the power away from those who cling to it as life itself, and no amount of action short of revolution and committed resolve will banish the thought of outside governance away from the hopeful slaves and willful serfs of this country.
This leaves us at the very end of what has been feared by so many for so long; the identity that America chooses is that of which its citizens love and hate, at the very basic level, without so much a second thought to the hypocrisy they live in.
America is a mutt, a mixed bag of bad tricks, bad ideology, bad policy, bad practices, bad socially accepted behaviors and the worst form of apathy that has ever been known to mankind.
You can choose your own form of government, or YOU CAN CHOOSE TO BE FREE!
No comments:
Post a Comment