"Democracy" – it's one of those words. It never appears in the U.S. Constitution (a written constitution is a dead letter, btw), nor in the Declaration of Independence. Quite appalling to many Founding Fathers. How did this most-definitely-not-a-democracy! turn into one? When did "we" become a "democracy." And what, historically, is democracy?
From where I stand today, I'd say that 'democracy' is a kind of peasant madness, a peasant revolt against an aristocratic order, and, as such, totally reactionary. What we fail to apprehend here in the USA! USA! USA! is that the Jacobins, they were democratic; the Italian Fascists, they were democratic; the German National Socialists, they were democratic; the Russian International Socialists (Communists), they were democratic; the British Fabian Socialists, they were democratic. Europe has been living in a democratic *phase* for since at least the Frankish Genocide (sorry, "French Revolution", but how it can remain "France" when you've killed off the Frankish state is beyond me). The American (sorta-) Revolution wasn't even about the monarch – it was about established rights. That war also had its appalling democratic aspect too, just we don't talk about it, or, like the south, we're so fanatic, that we don't even care (e.g. I wanted to name my sons Grant and Sherman - gross!)
"Democracy," to us is a word, and a holy word at that. When I was in the sixth grade I realize we were being spoon-fed 'democracy,' much in the same way I had the *right* and only *true* religion: Protestantism. It's the same with 'democracy' – we have a fanatical, unquestioning and unquestionable commitment this abstraction. Well, I say it's highly questionable wether 'democracy' is good or bad for us. And it's not clear to me that a monarchy, or an aristocracy would be "bad" in any meaningful way – except for my own personal unbounded vanity, which I take to be the heart of the "Democratic Man."
“In former days, when wars arose from individual causes, from the policy of a Minister or the passion of a King, when they were fought by small regular armies of professional soldiers, and when their course was retarded by the difficulties of communication and supply, and often suspended by the winter season, it was possible to limit the liabilities of the combatants. But now, when mighty populations are impelled on each other, each individual severally embittered and inflamed—when the resources of science and civilisation sweep away everything that might mitigate their fury, an European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings.”
"If we were to judge forms of government from their prevalence and duration in history we should have to give the palm to monarchy; democracies, by contrast, have been hectic interludes."
I believe that "democracy" can be summed up thusly: a plutocratic oligarchy ruling a muddled proletariate, whose chief religious object is the state. The oligarchy runs the schools and the theatre – Hey, Plato! – so they can pre-determine what the proletariate *values*.
"Democracy" – it's one of those words. It never appears in the U.S. Constitution (a written constitution is a dead letter, btw), nor in the Declaration of Independence. Quite appalling to many Founding Fathers. How did this most-definitely-not-a-democracy! turn into one? When did "we" become a "democracy." And what, historically, is democracy?
From where I stand today, I'd say that 'democracy' is a kind of peasant madness, a peasant revolt against an aristocratic order, and, as such, totally reactionary. What we fail to apprehend here in the USA! USA! USA! is that the Jacobins, they were democratic; the Italian Fascists, they were democratic; the German National Socialists, they were democratic; the Russian International Socialists (Communists), they were democratic; the British Fabian Socialists, they were democratic. Europe has been living in a democratic *phase* for since at least the Frankish Genocide (sorry, "French Revolution", but how it can remain "France" when you've killed off the Frankish state is beyond me). The American (sorta-) Revolution wasn't even about the monarch – it was about established rights. That war also had its appalling democratic aspect too, just we don't talk about it, or, like the south, we're so fanatic, that we don't even care (e.g. I wanted to name my sons Grant and Sherman - gross!)
"Democracy," to us is a word, and a holy word at that. When I was in the sixth grade I realize we were being spoon-fed 'democracy,' much in the same way I had the *right* and only *true* religion: Protestantism. It's the same with 'democracy' – we have a fanatical, unquestioning and unquestionable commitment this abstraction. Well, I say it's highly questionable wether 'democracy' is good or bad for us. And it's not clear to me that a monarchy, or an aristocracy would be "bad" in any meaningful way – except for my own personal unbounded vanity, which I take to be the heart of the "Democratic Man."
From the pen of Winston Churchill:
“In former days, when wars arose from individual causes, from the policy of a Minister or the passion of a King, when they were fought by small regular armies of professional soldiers, and when their course was retarded by the difficulties of communication and supply, and often suspended by the winter season, it was possible to limit the liabilities of the combatants. But now, when mighty populations are impelled on each other, each individual severally embittered and inflamed—when the resources of science and civilisation sweep away everything that might mitigate their fury, an European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings.”
From Will Durant's "Lessons of History"
"If we were to judge forms of government from their prevalence and duration in history we should have to give the palm to monarchy; democracies, by contrast, have been hectic interludes."
"bloody" would be a good modifier along with "hectic"
I believe that "democracy" can be summed up thusly: a plutocratic oligarchy ruling a muddled proletariate, whose chief religious object is the state. The oligarchy runs the schools and the theatre – Hey, Plato! – so they can pre-determine what the proletariate *values*.