Since the Progressive Era in
America, the Left has struggled mightily to label itself in a way that its
world view can be made palatable to the American people. Realizing early on that Karl Marx’s theory of
“historical materialism” was simply not accepted by the majority of Americans,
the Left has always sought to cloak their Marxist vision of economics so as to
fool as many as they can. First, they
called themselves Progressives, then Social Democrats, then Liberals. Now, they have become Progressives once more, with many of them proclaiming Democratic Socialism to describe
the same fundamental world view.
According to the Democratic
Socialists of America, “Democratic
socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run
democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.” This is a purposeful juxtaposition of a type
of government with an economic system, designed to confuse the millions who
either never took Civics in high school, or have forgotten what they learned. Apparently, it is believed that so long as
people get to vote, everything is fine. Unfortunately, there are millions of suckers out there who believe it, too.
The trouble is, using that
criteria as a measure of legitimacy, the old Soviet Union was
“democratic”. There were elections in the Soviet Union. But, there was only one political Party for
which the people could vote – the Communist Party.
It has been recognized for at least 3,000
years that there are just a few types of government, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy,
Republican, and Communist.
Plato
(429-347 B.C.)
The best form of government
in Plato’s “Ideal State” was
Monarchy, a “Philosopher King”, assisted by an Aristocracy, the “Guardians”. In this Ideal
State there will be three classes of citizens - the producing class, the
warrior class, and the ruling class, each performing its proper function. He claimed that each man, by the nature of
his talents, belonged to one or the other of these classes and that there
should be no overlapping, no moving back and forth from one class to another,
or belonging to more than one class. If
such things happened, Plato declared, it would be "the ruin of the State."
Plato's Philosopher King was a man whose wisdom and understanding was
refined beyond that of other men. In other words, while everyone is born with
the ability to reason, in the end only a few go beyond the understanding of
others. This gives them the right and
authority to rule.
In his later years, Plato
turned from considerations of the ideal state to more practical political
matters. While he turned away from the
imaginary, he still utilized rational analysis in his later writings. In The
Statesman, he set forth what has become the classical understanding of the
possible forms of government. They are
rule by one, rule by a few, and rule by the many.
He further divided these into
what he termed the legitimate and perverted models of these forms of
government. He considered monarchy as
the legitimate form of rule by one. Its
perversion would be rule by a tyrant or tyranny. An aristocracy would be rule by the few and
oligarchy would be its perversion. Interestingly
enough, he termed rule by the many as democracy, but gave no distinctive names
to either its legitimate or perverted forms.
Aristotle
(384-322 B.C.)
Aristotle elaborated on
Plato's thinking regarding the forms of government and made distinctions
between acceptable and unacceptable practices.
In theory, or ideally, Aristotle said that monarchy - rule by one -
might be the best form of government.
Thus, he said, "If there be
some one person, or more than one whose virtue is so pre-eminent that the
virtues or the political capacity of all the rest admit of no comparison with
his or theirs, he or they can be no longer regarded as part of the state. Such a one may be truly deemed a God among
men."
He doubted, however, that such
a situation would occur except in very rare cases, or that if it did, it would
be quite as good as might be imagined.
In reality, the wisest and best intentioned would need the counsel of
other men as well as their assistance in ruling, and law would be preferable to
personal rule. Besides, the most likely
result of rule by one would be tyranny, which is the perversion of rule by
one. It occurs when a man rules in his
own interest and for his own purposes, rather than in the interest of those
whom he governs.
Aristotle followed Plato in stating what he viewed as the legitimate and illegitimate forms. The rule of the few, if it is
a good government, Aristotle called an aristocracy. It would be the rule of the best qualified
men in the country who would be expected to rule in the best interest of all
the people. The perversion of aristocracy
is oligarchy, which is the rule by the few in their own interest. The main point he made was that oligarchies
tend to keep power perpetually in the hands of a few who use the government as
if it were their personal possession.
Over time they become tyrannical.
Rule by the many has the
potential for being the best form of government, according to Aristotle. More precisely, he believed that the best
government would be one which included both the few - men of wealth and high
intellect - as well as the many - including those from both the lower and
middle ranks.
The middle class provided the
best hope for good government. He wrote that "It is plain, then, that the most perfect political community must
be amongst those who are in the middle rank, and those states are best
instituted wherein these are a larger and more respectable part; or, if that
cannot be, at least greater than either of the other classes; so that being
thrown into the balance it may prevent either scale from preponderating."
Since the majority of the
populace would have some part in governing, the laws would be more readily
obeyed. Such a government would be
termed a "polity" or constitutional government. Interestingly, Democracy was the term
Aristotle used to describe the perverted form of rule by the many. He did not object to rule by the many so long
as it was rule by law and moderated by thoughtful and experienced men. However, the perversion occurs when "the multitude have the supreme power
and supersede the law by the decrees.
This is a state of affairs brought about by demagogues." In other words, rule by emotion. Such a government acts not in what is good
for the people of the country but what appeals to the worst inclinations of the
people collectively. Its tendency is
toward mob rule.
Madison, Jefferson, Washington,
Adams, et al
The impact of Greek thought
and practice on the founding of the United States was more indirect than
direct. The U.S. was never composed of
city-states. The American idea of the
rule of law was taken more from the Roman and British example than that of
Athens. The Roman influence on the
political institutions and practices of the United States was very great. Rome had a constitution going back to the
Twelve Tablets in 450 B.C. and forward through many changes in governmental
arrangements until the very end of the Roman Republic.
The United States was styled
a republic on the model of Rome and our Constitution provides that the states
are guaranteed republican governments as well.
But, the Founders were also well
aware that the Roman Republic disintegrated and Roman government reverted to
the rule of one when Caesar proclaimed himself Emperor in 45. B.C.
They also tended to view
Democracy, at least what is called “direct” democracy in much the same way
Aristotle had. If all the people had an
equal voice, without any method of controlling their passions, the majority
could always vote away the rights of the minority. This is why we were given a Representative
Republic, with separation of powers and checks and balances, rather than a
Democracy. To call America a “democracy”
is simply a glib and easy reference to the fact that people get to vote. But, as stated previously, so could the
people of the Soviet Union.
The last type of government,
Communism, is not a government at all.
It describes a Utopian State where the nature of man has been
“perfected” so that no government is needed.
Despite calling the governments of the Soviet Union and China Communist,
they are no such thing because a government did, and does, exist.
Capitalism and Socialism
Neither capitalism nor
socialism are types of government. They
are economic systems. The purpose stated
by the Democratic Socialists, to meet
public need, is more a statement of Utilitarianism, the greatest good for
the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a moral theory, not a form of government. But, as an economic
system, socialism can only exist where there is Plato’s perverted rule of the
few – Oligarchy, ultimately becoming autocratic and totalitarian. That's the only way to keep the people in order. Putting lipstick on this pig, doesn't change its fundamental nature.
What is most ironic is that those who most favor "Democratic Socialism" are intellectuals. What they don't seem to realize is that, in every country that has imposed a socialist economy, the intellectuals are the first ones killed by those in power. They should be careful what they wish for.
