Bill,

I don't think this is going anywhere because, for one, you seem to believe 
that majority adult suffrage once every four years = "democracy", end of 
story. However, when you study the history of constitutional systems in 
detail, you see the variety that have been or could be practised and how 
very, very few of them are actually used in the contemporary world.

> I believe Athens was a democracy in the same sense that Apartheid South 
>Aftrica was a democracy - the minority of the population who were 
>citizens were entitled to vote. Slaves did not get a vote in Athens.

Franchise is one thing; democracy is another. My point was not about 
Athens per se; I was giving an example of direct democracy. In first year 
political science they tell you there are two basic forms of 
democracy: "direct" and "representative", the latter being the 
overwhelming norm in the contemporary world, although there are isolated 
or trivial examples of direct democracy -- e.g. referenda and the town 
meetings held in parts of Switzerland...as long as you aren't a woman in 
one of the Swiss cantons where women don't have the vote. (Apartheid South 
Africa _could_ be classified as a "representative democracy" with a 
franchise that excluded most of the population.) But I digress...

To say "Americans can change that democratically" is a classic circular 
argument.

> Yes, there are people with guns, but they are intended to stop a 
>minority from staging a coup to end the current state of affairs. Since 
>they are ultimately accountable to the majority through the democratic 
>government, they cannot stop a majority from changing the economic system.

That's a might big and long "ultimately".

> You really have to face up to the fact that a majority don't want to 
>change the economic system and that it won't change until the majority 
>can be convinced it should change.

What makes you think that I don't know this? I don't think any capitalist 
state is ever going to abolish itself, if that's what you're getting at. I 
think that's usually when coups happen.

> It is only political democracy. It may not sound very good to you, but 
>to people who don't have it it sounds like a big improvement. 

I note the word "sounds".

>Our ancestors sacrificed a great deal to bequeath it to us, we don't have 
>to be satisfied with such limited democracy but we can at least 
>acknowledge that it is better than no democracy at all.

Of course, but let's not confuse "limited democracy" with responsibility, 
or with people "deserving" the consequences.

> The foreign policies carried out in their name are easily discovered. 
>But if a people don't want to know what is being done in their name, 
>their studied ignorance doesn't absolve them from responsibility.

Do really believe this stuff? This is the standard liberal idealist 
argument that we are all free, equal and able to act. It fails e.g. to 
take any account of the differences between individuals and the variety of 
their access to information.

I wonder how many Americans know about (e.g.) the overthrow of Mossadegh 
in Iran. How about Allende? Or their staunch ally Suharto and his killing 
of an estimated 500,000 to five million political opponents during 1965-
66. Or how many westerners know for that matter. It certainly escaped me 
until a couple of years ago. Did it make the front page of the Mercury and 
the Advocate?

"US citizens have the same access to information I do and a lot more 
influence on what their local media reveals."

Says who? As an ex-journalist I can assure you that the public have very 
little influence on news content. Compared (e.g.) to advertisers or the 
percived interests of proprietors. Self-censorship is far more effective 
than official censorship.

> I have disposed of this feeble excuse, it won't help to keep repeating 
>it.

I hate to tell you this, but you haven't "disposed" of it; expect to hear 
other people repeat it for many years to come.

> You seem to have a feeble grasp on reality.

Gee, thanks mate. I usually understand bullshit lines like that to mean 
I'm winning a debate.

> There isn't much evidence that campaign funding is decisive to the 
overall outcome.

Says who? As for "extravagant and blatant bribery of politicians", who was 
talking about any such thing? Not me. I was talking about the subtle 
bribery of politicians.

"...a transparent misrepresentation" Another personal insult? I must be 
winning.

"The political state [is there any other kind of state?] is still merely a 
political animal. It does not organise the economy [come again? What does 
the Federal Reserve Board do?] which is the private affair of the private 
capitalists who own the means of production."

As Marx pointed out, capital is necessarily "social capital". It cannot 
expand if it remains private. And at an early (or the earliest) stage in 
the history of any capitalist development, capital acquires control of the 
state, a step which is necessary for its continued expansion. So it 
is "political capital" as well. Eventually representative democracy is 
conceded, to dampen dissent. Ordinary voters are like ordinary investors; 
we don't get the same return as the big guns.

>There has been progress, but the quality of the American voter needs a 
>major upgrade I would say.

As Doug keeps pointing out, they also have on a very high average standard 
of living and if --- as I and many others think is the case --- many have 
no knowledge of the worst aspects of US foreign policy over the last 50 
years, why would they take any interests in elections of millionaire A v. 
millionaire B?