What is a republic?
At some point in 2009 or 2010, as I watched the political and economic catastrophes of Barack Obama interposing himself between the banksters and "the pitchforks" unfold, I was reading a book on the history of American industrial technology. The Introduction included a discussion of the republican political thought of the Founders. Those two or three paragraphs launched me into researching American history, to answer two questions:
What is a republic?
Are there economic policies that distinguish a republic from other forms of government?
These two questions have been the beacon of my intellectual journey this past decade. There are a few of you who have seen me post some of what I have been learning and thinking in answer to these two questions. The notes I have compiled total over 50,000 words, which may sound like a lot, but cutting and pasting entire excerpts can add up fast. Now the time has come, I believe, to distill those notes into a coherent exposition of what I have learned and concluded. I shall begin to post the results at the end of this week, as a holiday season gift to all of you, to the citizen of the United States, and to the people of the world.
But before I begin posting, I think it would be very interesting to have people post their own answers to these two questions. So, please, post here what you believe, what you know, what you know you don't know, what you would like to know, what ever you want, in answer to these two questions. At the very least, please take a shot at the first question.
What is a republic?
Are there economic policies that distinguish a republic from other forms of government?
Comments
Basically a republic is supposed to be a
representative democracy with a representative government system and a head of state. It's supposed to represent all people and not just those with the most money. Unfortunately, ours doesn't work that way and never will. It all depends on how that representative government is set up. Ours is set up to favor the ruling class and is completely controlled accordingly.
Relative to the economic policies or system, in a true representative democracy that would be up to the people. In some European countries and Latin America there are representative democracies that maintain democratic socialist economic systems. Seems like the more beholden to the rich and powerful a representative system is, the more neoliberal capitalist it gets.
Redress allowed?
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
@divineorder
Fingers crossed that the stall makes them think for a hopeful change - and my unicorns have their horns crossed, too. (Unobtrusively sharpening the ends, I suspect.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJr9Lv27tKo
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
First question.
By common definition (define common):
Corrected:
Second question.
No.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
"Republic"
For me, the meaning is given in the final two syllables: "public".
The government, the authority, and the ownership of the nation as an entity are vested in the people, collectively. The national interests, including the governing/ruling interests, are publicly owned, not privately. They operate for the benefit of the public. The public good is the first priority, not the enhancement of private interests.
Contrast this with Great Britain as it was at the time of the American Revolution: a monarchy, and more broadly, an aristocracy.
I don't know if there are any specific economic policies that apply to republics, but it seems as though there's one that does not: capitalism, at least in the form which we now practice.
(Ironic, isn't it? The current Democratic party does not act to further democracy, and the Republican party does not act to further the republic.)
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Whatever it is
We don't have one.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Rough opinion
Generally do a little research before commenting on subjects with specific definitions so not to confuse an issue. Please no one take this definition as accurate only my thoughts.
What is a republic?
My understanding of a republic is more what it is not, than it's definition. It is not a direct democracy, one-vote per person. It is not a monarchy with inherited leadership based on birth status and inherited political stations.
A coalition of geographical areas bound together under a single governing body. Representation is based on geographical location not ethnic group or population. Selection process of representative may vary from direct vote, committee selection to appointment.
Are there economic policies that distinguish a republic from other forms of government?
Not thought of a republic within the context of economic policies. Do believe during the formation of the Republican party there was a primary thought government was
responsible for priming the engine of the economy by building or incentivizing infrastructure and dispersing land to individuals.
Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.
Res publica
public affairs or the public business as well as land and other tangible assets owned by the citizens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica
More generally, a polity which has no hereditary rulership, and in which the citizens rule themselves through a group of agreed upon institutions, which is how I think of the word. During the time of the Roman Republic, the initials RSPQ (Senate and People of Rome) meant to its' opponents that there was no ruler with whom you could cut a deal; you were faced with the entire polity. The earliest such polity of which historians know is one of the Phoenician cities, Arpad if I remember correctly.
I agree with the historian who said on one of Ken Burns's documentaries that the USA would be remembered in centuries to come for three things, jazz music, the game of baseball and the Constitution. Myself, I do not want to see the Constitution ignored or set aside in favor of Republican oligarchy or Democratic tribalist patronage.
To determine the best economic (and I think, foreign) policies for a republic, one might want to look at long lived republics, Switzerland, Ragusa, Venice. I would point out to multiculturalists that in tiny Switzerland, three official languages are spoken, along with at least one other Romance dialect which is sometimes called a separate language, and no Swiss seem to feel that their laws must be altered to accommodate different communities. India has survived as a republic since its' independence, with literally hundreds of varying languages being spoken by a myriad of ethnic communities who each have their own history and cultural traditions.
I can't comment on appropriate economic policies but I would like to say that I think foreign policy is critical here, and that, IMHO, the best foreign policy for a republic is one of non-aligned, non-interventionist enlightened self interest. We look after our own affairs and other nations look after theirs.
Mary Bennett
A republic is anything that calls itself a republic.
The Roman Republic was a republic, because its sponsors called it one. Oh, sure, Roman society was characterized by a system of gradations of status, so real power depended upon where one was in the system, and if one wasn't a citizen or if one wasn't the paterfamilias of a household, one was there to play along.
Today status is held through property holdings, personal connections, positions within hierarchical systems (government and corporate), club membership (Trilateral Commission, CFR, and so on), and other aspects of the personal resume. The participants are still part of a republic, if that's what you're asking.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Oh, and --
Now, historically, "economic policies" look like this:
1) 199,500 years of the human race's 200,000-year existence on Earth: precapitalism.
2) Last five hundred years or so: capitalism.
It's weird how that works. We're not likely to go back to precapitalism, and yet under capitalism "economic policies" serve to protect the property and "economic rights" of profit-making entities. And so the planet is ever-increasingly blanketed by the effects of said profit-making entities, such that the Earth's atmosphere and landscape and content of its oceans is being constantly manipulated.
In history this ever-increasing blanket is represented by a J-curve, a line on a graph moving ever-increasingly upward. So for instance there are 7.6 billion people in the world today, whereas there were maybe 350 or 400 million people in the world back in 1400. Some authors have called our period of history the "Great Acceleration," although it's hard to date: McNeill and Engelke think it was "since 1945," but Bonneuil and Fressoz can show that the exact same case can be made for a "Great Acceleration" beginning in 1880, just before the first large-scale power plant was invented.
If there's a constituent fact of this era, it's that "economic policy" merely plays along with this ever-spiraling-upward of all of the statistics of aggregate production and consumption, and that at some point something will have to give. If there's another planet we can all live on (Mars, perhaps), it will be too expensive for the capitalists to move us there without causing extensive damage to our bodies. Will a "republic" save us?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
A word about economic policies
A word about economic policies: If you go to a website that includes searchable full texts of the Constitution and The Federalist Papers, you will find that the words “capitalism” and “capitalist” are not included. That’s what I found about 2 or 3 years ago. If someone else tries such a search and obtains different results, please let me know! The Constitution does not specify any particular way of organizing the national economy, and it certainly does not specify capitalism. Yet, paradoxically, the need to establish central government oversight over economic activity was discussed repeatedly in the Constitutional convention.
- Tony Wikrent
Nation Builder Books(nbbooks)
Mebane, NC 27302
2nbbooks@gmail.com
Oh, I'm just trying to suggest --
that there's a context to your question that needs to be heeded. The idea that it's in fact a "national economy" with "central government oversight over economic activity" might be seen as offering a couple of big hints. Date it however you want; the "nation-state" is a historically-specific idea that probably doesn't apply to the Sumerian city-states in the same way that it applies to the United States of America.
There may not be a discussion of "capitalism" in the Federalist Papers, but if I recall correctly Hamilton, Madison, and Jay also failed to discuss policies toward serfdom, peasants living on the commons, the guilds, or the renegotiation of feudal contracts either. You might get something out of political texts by asking: what sort of economic reality is presupposed by the political reality thus described?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
@Tony Wikrent
I thought that nothing could possibly induce me to go there again - but that diary was more than worth-while.
Have you considered re-posting that here, pretty-pretty-please with unicorns on top?
Edit: assuming that you can...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
The Constitution can be amended.
I wonder if there might a need for an amendment which establishes a publicly owned national bank, to replace or take control of the Federal Reserve.
Mary Bennett
@Nastarana
Under current circs, supporting the opening the US Constitution for any sort of revision might not be advisable...
http://billmoyers.com/story/alec-constitutional-convention/
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I was thinking amendment
not convention, but I do take your point.
If the Fed was established by legislation, I suppose it can be eliminated or removed from private hands the same way.
Mary Bennett
The US is a Democratic Republic -- not a republic
Never let the Republicans get away with calling the US a republic. A true democracy is when the people make the laws that govern the populace. A true republic is when representatives chosen by the people make the laws that govern the people.
Most of our laws are made by representatives chosen [sic] by the people. But some are not. Referendums are good example of laws made directly by the people. Maine just passed laws, by referendum, regarding expansion of Medicaid when the governor vetoed legislation expanding it. Many states are passing marijuana laws by referendum. And referendums are good way of going around legislatures and governors who refuse to pass laws the people want.
When the Constitution was adopted by the states, some of the states chose to adopt the Constitution by referendum.
These are two examples of the democratic part of our government.
So that is the critical difference between the two. And remember, never let the Republicans get away with "we are a republic," when we are a democratic republic. And let them know why. And let them know that the republic part of the system is what is failing us, not the democratic part.
Capitalism
The term capitalism most likely originated in the 1848 French revolution, so its no surprise that the Constitution doesn't mention it. It was not a positive term as it was described by the socialist Blanc as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others", which sounds to me like a perjorative relating it to feudalism (whether thats fair or not is a topic for a different post).
You could argue that Adam Smith was the first major economist to push capitalism (without the term), but that was more in comparison with mercantilism, and its not clear whether he would have been a capitalist today - after all his labor theory of value is also the basis of Marx, and social democrats could also claim some of his theories.
Business owners were referred to capitalists by the time of the Constitution, but thats more of a factual statement (those who have capital) rather than an economic system.