I answered: >>No. The idea of factions fits with the general notion of there being special interests that conflict with the "general good" or "public interest." Madison proposed his view of the public interest, and saw factions as going against it. (His public interest, if I remember correctly, was that of the property- and slave-owning elite.)<<
Jim (or rather, the other Jim besides myself) quotes Federalist #10: > But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. <
What I said before was much too hasty.
Let's try again. Madison, like Aristotle and others before him, described classes in competition. (It's a myth that Marx invented the concept of class.) But the impression you get is of a certain vague equality of the various factions or classes. The following kind of inequality is missed: the class of "those who are without property" are much more numerous than those who hold property. So even if we see these two classes as having "equal power" at some point in history, the amount of power each member of the propertyless class has as an individual is much less than that held by each member of the propertied class. (The power of the propertyless exists only when they unite in political parties, unions, etc.)
(At the time Madison wrote, the size of the propertyless class was pretty small (by historical standards) amongst the free white citizen males, so maybe his presumption of equality wasn't that far off. It's like Adam Smith in the WEALTH OF NATIONS who writes as if workers and their "masters" are not that far from each other in terms of social status. Compared to the 19th century, they weren't.)
Marx's classes also differ from Madison's in a more fundamental way: classes are defined by positions in a society that involves the systemic domination of labor, its exploitation, and its alienation, and the use of the product of exploitation for the accumulation of power by the dominating class.
This is very different from what I take as a Madisonian vision of the _competition_ between the propertied and the propertyless, where the word "competition" involves the rough equality I mentioned above. There may be competition between classes, i.e., clashing efforts to attain short-term gain concerning narrow issues. But Marx goes further in that the propertyless class can unite to threaten the entire system of domination, exploitaton, alienation, and accumulation.
I read Madison above as saying that we (the good guys, the Federalists) need to strive just as hard to keep the propertied from abusing their power as we strive to prevent the same by the propertyless. But in other places, the Federalist Papers put a big emphasis on the avoidance of the _tyranny of the majority_. This, in practice, means keeping the propertyless out of power. On the other hand, the propertied, who are presumed to be the only ones fit to rule, are exhorted to be moderate, think long term, take pity on their social inferiors, etc. At the time, most if not all US states had property restrictions on the franchise.
and he adds: >... The real question, as I see it, is how many "conflicting interests" in society are truly unrelated to class? Given a true society of equals, with common ownership of the means of production, are there disputes that are truly unamenable to "self-contained" democratic solutions, that require a separate state authority for mediation? <
I don't see conflicting interests as arising _only_ from class; I doubt that the abolition of classes will abolish patriarchy or racism, at least not overnight. (We should do an experiment and see for sure.) Though inequality of wealth and power that corresponds to differences of other sorts sure does intensify those other differences. For example, the Protestant vs. Catholic antagonism in the North of Ireland wouldn't have turned so bloody if not for the way in which the former group used its economic and thus political advantages.
I had written: >>Usually, as in the anarchist movement in Spain in the 1930s, that means that authority goes underground (with the FAI secretly guiding the CNT). That means we have a hidden authority which is held responsible to no-one.<<
>I must confess I am not as familiar with the history of the Spanish Civil
War as I should be. Could you elaborate on this, or (better yet) point me
to a good history?<
It's been a long time since I read about this (though not as long as since I read Madison). I'm pretty sure the best source with solid academic credentials but without sacrificing insight is: Broué, Pierre and Emile Témime. The Revolution and the Cvil War in Spain, Translated by Tony White. London, Faber c1970. The first part of the book is on the revolution.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html