THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Fife]

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

[Speaker to Animals]

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec4.html

It even has a link to the definition:

Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president;

[DBTrek]

Doesn’t say shit about koalas tho.
Or drop bears.
Which should technically be drop marsupials.

[Okeefenokee]

You do not understand what these words mean, then.

America is BOTH a republic and a democracy (representative democracy).

The word republic means the government is a public matter rather than inherited.

America is a republic. China is a republic. Republic is not synonymous with representative democracy, and democracy is a more general term that encompasses both direct democracy and representative democracy.

People who keep repeating this nonsense seem to confuse republic with representative democracy and the broader term democracy with a particular term direct democracy.

Then you are ceding ground to post modernists. That is the only place where this discussion even matters, and they would love to know that you have deemed this distinction to be meaningless.

I'll post some of their material later when I'm not on my phone.

I have ceded ground to the fucking dictionary, as it has existed since long before Karl Marx came along. The word republic literally only means the government is not inherited but is controlled somehow by the public. HOW it is controlled is another matter. America controls the republic via a democracy. Our form of democracy is a representative democracy.

Athens before the Spartans fucked their shit up was a direct democracy. Democracy and direct democracy are not synonymous. Direct democracies and representative democracies are both forms of democracies.

If I grab a banana from atop my fridge and say I want to eat this delicious banana, would you then say, "That's not a banana, that's food; a banana is a type of fruit!" That's basically what you are doing here when you confuse republic with representative democracy, and democracy with direct democracy.

Those are all pointless distinctions. There is no meaningful discussion where those distinctions matter. You're arguing with yourself over how meaningless you can make a distinction.

Back over here where the distinctions actually matter,

In these interventions, Wolin formulated an original non-Marxist critique of capitalism and the fate of democratic political life in the present. In his effort to think about the fate of democracy in the United States, he formulated a novel theorization of modern and postmodern forms of power and how these shaped the limits and horizons of political life in the late twentieth and early twentieth-first centuries. While influenced by Marx's critique of capitalism as a form of power, Wolin's political thought is decidedly non-Marxist in his insistence on participatory democracy, the primacy of the political, and the conviction that a radical theory of democracy requires mapping the forms of power beyond the economy. Wolin's political thought is particularly concerned with the fate of democracy at the hands of bureaucratic imperatives, elitism, and managerial principles and practices. His ideas of “inverted totalitarianism” and “fugitive democracy” constitute well-known signatures of his reflections. Another signature contribution is his account of the liberal-democratic state, which Wendy Brown has characterized as a "neo-Weberian" account of the state,

"heavy with rationalities and bureaucratic domination; it is a Marxist-structuralist state, neither identical with nor a simple instrument of capitalism but complexly entwined with it. It is an administrative and penetrative state - those tentacles are everywhere and on everyone, especially the most disempowered; they do not honor public/private distinctions, political/economic distinctions, or even legal/extra-legal distinctions...the contemporary state is a complex amalgam of political, economic, administrative and discursive powers."[13]

Out of this diagnosis of the state and its complex relationship to capitalism, Wolin forged the idea of "fugitive democracy." In his view, democracy is not a fixed state form, but a political experience in which ordinary people are active political actors. In this construction "fugitive" stands for the ways in which contemporary forms of power have made this aspiration an evanescent and momentary political experience.

Sit there with your dictionary and cede the lingual territory.

[Speaker to Animals]

Look at the root word in republic.

Etymology

We have to go back all the way to Latin to understand the etymology of the word republic. The Latin respublica is a combination of res and publica.

Res is a Latin word that can mean thing, affair, matter or simply stuff. It comes from the Proto-Italic reis, which means thing.

Publica is another Latin word, and is the feminine nominative singular form of publicus (public).

Thus, respublica means public affair or public thing.

Republic means the government is a public matter rather than inherited (private).

It means the People control the government rather than whatever stand-in you can find for King Numa or George III, etc. etc.

How the people run that government they control is a different matter. We happen to be a democracy. China is something else.

[Okeefenokee]

Ice and steam are both water too. Add that to your list of useless trivia.

[DBTrek]

... any liquid has a freezing point. Not just water.


Awww fuck, sorry.
Didn’t mean to Bjorn you.

[Okeefenokee]

A cardboard shack and a timber framed cabin are both wooden houses.

[DrYouth]

In these interventions, Wolin formulated an original non-Marxist critique of capitalism and the fate of democratic political life in the present. In his effort to think about the fate of democracy in the United States, he formulated a novel theorization of modern and postmodern forms of power and how these shaped the limits and horizons of political life in the late twentieth and early twentieth-first centuries. While influenced by Marx's critique of capitalism as a form of power, Wolin's political thought is decidedly non-Marxist in his insistence on participatory democracy, the primacy of the political, and the conviction that a radical theory of democracy requires mapping the forms of power beyond the economy. Wolin's political thought is particularly concerned with the fate of democracy at the hands of bureaucratic imperatives, elitism, and managerial principles and practices. His ideas of “inverted totalitarianism” and “fugitive democracy” constitute well-known signatures of his reflections. Another signature contribution is his account of the liberal-democratic state, which Wendy Brown has characterized as a "neo-Weberian" account of the state,

"heavy with rationalities and bureaucratic domination; it is a Marxist-structuralist state, neither identical with nor a simple instrument of capitalism but complexly entwined with it. It is an administrative and penetrative state - those tentacles are everywhere and on everyone, especially the most disempowered; they do not honor public/private distinctions, political/economic distinctions, or even legal/extra-legal distinctions...the contemporary state is a complex amalgam of political, economic, administrative and discursive powers."[13]

Out of this diagnosis of the state and its complex relationship to capitalism, Wolin forged the idea of "fugitive democracy." In his view, democracy is not a fixed state form, but a political experience in which ordinary people are active political actors. In this construction "fugitive" stands for the ways in which contemporary forms of power have made this aspiration an evanescent and momentary political experience.

Sit there with your dictionary and cede the lingual territory.

You don't win against post modernists by becoming obtusely rigid in response to their abstract smoke blowing.

Just calm down and stay grounded.

We can have a democratically elected republic without losing to the post modernists...

They will defeat themselves with their own lack of groundedness.... drift away like smoke.

[Okeefenokee]

In these interventions, Wolin formulated an original non-Marxist critique of capitalism and the fate of democratic political life in the present. In his effort to think about the fate of democracy in the United States, he formulated a novel theorization of modern and postmodern forms of power and how these shaped the limits and horizons of political life in the late twentieth and early twentieth-first centuries. While influenced by Marx's critique of capitalism as a form of power, Wolin's political thought is decidedly non-Marxist in his insistence on participatory democracy, the primacy of the political, and the conviction that a radical theory of democracy requires mapping the forms of power beyond the economy. Wolin's political thought is particularly concerned with the fate of democracy at the hands of bureaucratic imperatives, elitism, and managerial principles and practices. His ideas of “inverted totalitarianism” and “fugitive democracy” constitute well-known signatures of his reflections. Another signature contribution is his account of the liberal-democratic state, which Wendy Brown has characterized as a "neo-Weberian" account of the state,

"heavy with rationalities and bureaucratic domination; it is a Marxist-structuralist state, neither identical with nor a simple instrument of capitalism but complexly entwined with it. It is an administrative and penetrative state - those tentacles are everywhere and on everyone, especially the most disempowered; they do not honor public/private distinctions, political/economic distinctions, or even legal/extra-legal distinctions...the contemporary state is a complex amalgam of political, economic, administrative and discursive powers."[13]

Out of this diagnosis of the state and its complex relationship to capitalism, Wolin forged the idea of "fugitive democracy." In his view, democracy is not a fixed state form, but a political experience in which ordinary people are active political actors. In this construction "fugitive" stands for the ways in which contemporary forms of power have made this aspiration an evanescent and momentary political experience.

Sit there with your dictionary and cede the lingual territory.

You don't win against post modernists by becoming obtusely rigid in response to their abstract smoke blowing.

Just calm down and stay grounded.

We can have a democratically elected republic without losing to the post modernists...

They will defeat themselves with their own lack of groundedness.... drift away like smoke.

Before you can win anything you have to understand them, and pretending your definitions are their definitions is not the way you do that.

Here's another example. You might think that politics and the political are basically the same thing, but they don't.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3877054?se ... b_contents

Politics is what you know it to be, but to them, the political is something else. It's the spontaneous moment of action taken by the people outside of the avenues of politics, aka, the fucking mob.

Congress is politics. The Ferguson riots were the political.

As a starting point it is necessary to reject the classical and modern conception that ascribes to democracy "a" proper or settled form. That kind of institutionalization has the effect of reducing democracy to a system while taming its politics by process.