I do not think you are getting my point. I am not arguing that the US is not a plutocracy, but that merely calling it plutocracy does not reveal systemic factors that perpetuate it, democratic facade notwithstanding. Plantation owners were wiped out as a class, yet the system they created still endures. This requires an explanation beyond a statement that the rich in the US have disproportionate share of power.
My argument attempted to provide such an explanation. To summarize it, the relative weakness of central government is the backbone of the US plutocratic system, whereas the wide spread hatred of the government is what perpetuates it.
Wojtek
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> RE: "Face it. The US political system is plutocracy, not democracy.
>> Always has been."
>>
>> [WS:] I think it is an oversimplification that obscures more than it
>> reveals.... Its political institutions were created by plantation owners
>> and businessmen whose overarching objective was to avoid replicating a
>> European monarchic system, and instead creating a 'democracy' by the 18th
>> century standards..."
>>
>
> "created by plantation owners and businessmen"--the very definition of
> plutocracy. And in the 18th century "democracy" was supported only by a
> handful of revolutionary dreamers. The founders, constituting a weak, newly
> established plutocracy, dreaded democracy far more than monarchy (Hamilton
> wanted to make Washington king, or at least president-for-life). Hence the
> anti-democratic, though liberal and decentralized, Constitution.
>
>>
>> ...That system of political parties and courts is far more conducive to
>> voicing
>> interest of the wealthy than a system with a strong central government -
>> which creates an impression of plutocracy... But the key point is... the
>> unsually strong power of political parties and courts (both responsive to
>> special interest groups) vis a vis that of the central government.
>>
>> And what, pray tell, is a "special interest group" other than a
> plutocratic faction with its dependent clientele?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>>>
>>> The closer democracy got to Ralph, the less he liked it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Face it. The US political system is plutocracy, not democracy. Always
>>> has been. Ralph Nader knows that better than anyone, having consistently
>>> experienced being denied such elementary democratic rights as ballot
>>> access
>>> and participation in national debate. Nobody in national political life
>>> is
>>> close to his equal as an advocate for democracy and opponent of corporate
>>> plutocracy.
>>>
>>> His new book, as described, seems like a clever illustration of the
>>> program
>>> of a real democratic movement. In the absence of such a movement--thanks
>>> to
>>> all the liberals, labor skates, and conformist leftists who gave us (most
>>> recently) Clinton, Obama, et. al., as lesser evils to even more stupid
>>> plutocrats--Ralph presents as historical fiction an illustration of his
>>> program as realized by the only people with the authority to do so, a
>>> fictional group of enlightened plutocrats doing what, in real life, they
>>> had
>>> obviously no desire to do. A new way to make his consistent point, so
>>> difficult for Dumbocratic leftists to grasp, the the US is a liberal
>>> plutocracy, not a democracy.
>>>
>>> Shane Mage
>>>
>>> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>>>
>>>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>>>> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>>>>
>>>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>