On 10/15/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wrote:
> > I think it was Aristotle (or someone even earlier!) who pointed out a
> > paradox here. Middle- or upper-class leaders are less likely to be
> > corrupted than are those who rise to the top from the working and poor
> > classes. That's because middle- and upper-class types already have the
> > money, power, and influence while those from the working and poor
> > classes find it easy to fall for the temptation of bribes or undue
> > perps [should be: perks].
Yoshie:
> I can't think of any individual leader in ancient Athens who rose from
> the lower order and exercised power in the fashion modern socialist,
> populist, Islamist, etc. leaders have after taking state power through
> nationalist revolution, though that may be because I know relatively
> little about ancient history.
you missed my point completely. If it didn't happen in Ari's time, he
was amazingly perceptive about the future. In any event, his employers
(the rich), referred to demagogues, representatives of the (non-slave,
non-female, citizen) people who took power. They saw Pericles as one,
if I remember correctly.
Weren't Aristotle's thoughts on demagogues more a sign of his
aristocratic anxiety about democracy than anything else? In
Aristotle's system of thought, a demagogue is one who acts against the
interests of rich men: "Revolutions in democracies are generally
caused by the intemperance of demagogues, who either in their private
capacity lay information against rich men until they compel them to
combine (for a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies), or
coming forward in public stir up the people against them" (at
<http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html>).
Hugo Chavez is Aristotle's idea of demagogue.
As for Pericles, wages for jurors, which allowed common men to serve
as jurors and thus participate in politics, was introduced by Pericles
(the rich did not need wages to participate in politics for they had
their own money and thus free time for politics), and Aristotle
clearly weren't enthusiastic about allowing common men to judge rich
men:
<blockquote>Also Pericles first made service in the jury-courts a paid
office, as a popular counter-measure against Cimon's wealth. [3] For
as Cimon had an estate large enough for a tyrant, in the first place
he discharged the general public services in a brilliant manner, and
moreover he supplied maintenance to a number of the members of his
deme; for anyone of the Laciadae who liked could come to his house
every day and have a moderate supply, and also all his farms were
unfenced, to enable anyone who liked to avail himself of the harvest.
[4] So as Pericles' means were insufficient for this lavishness, he
took the advice of Damonides of Oea (who was believed to suggest to
Pericles most of his measures, owing to which they afterwards
ostracized him), since he was getting the worst of it with his private
resources, to give the multitude what was their own, and he instituted
payment for the jury-courts; the result of which according to some
critics was their deterioration, because ordinary persons always took
more care than the respectable to cast lots for the duty.
(Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, 27.1,
<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Aristot.+Ath.+Pol.+27.1>)</blockquote>
Yoshie:
> Among the 21st-century nationalist leaders that I mentioned above, it
> is only Lula who has had serious charges of corruption levelled
> against him, and even in his case, the main charges have concerned a
> scheme to buy damaging dossiers about rivals and a cash-for-votes
> scandal (paying deputies to vote for PT legislation ... rather
> than personal enrichment . Of course, corruption of that sort
> couldn't have arisen in one-party socialist states for they didn't
> have competitive elections and parliamentary politics of the sort that
> exists in multi-party democracies.
one can be corrupted by other things than money or the wish to win in
elections. For example, as Yogi Berra once said, "power corrupts." I
think that's why the GOPsters are having a lot of trouble these days
and dose Dems have been given another chance to blow their electoral
chances. The power gave them the idea they could do anything (cover up
Foley's fun, etc.)
also, I specifically referred to the _second rank_ of leaders. It's
not Lula who takes bribes, but his fellow leaders. And the Workers
Party turns into a latter-day version of the Mexican PRI in its
heyday?
To my knowledge, MST and the like do not have the kind of corporatist
relation that the main Mexican unions have had with the PRI. It
seems to me that left-wing criticisms of -- including electoral
activism against -- Lula and the PT have been very vigorous.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
