4 ms·
Any concentration of power is a danger to democracy. We understood that already, and separated the legislature, an executive, and judiciary branches of power.
by sametmax 7y ago
Any concentration of power is a danger to democracy.
We understood that already, and separated the legislature, an executive, and judiciary branches of power. They are not bad, they are necessary, but you don't want them to mix.
We are now learning that the power of money must be separated as well. Money is not bad, but it should not mix with the rest.
And right now, they happily do.
- makotech222 7y agoActually, Marx figured that out in the 1800's. If you have two classes of people, the more powerful class will take control of government and advance interests for themselves.
- sametmax 7y agoNot the same. Marx assumes you should have no rich people. Separating powers does not imply that. It just implies rich people should be isolated the other powers.
- makotech222 7y agoNo, he doesn't assume you should have no rich people. He wants there to be only one class of people, regardless of total wealth. There are two classes in capitalism, owners and workers. In Marx, there is only worker-owners.
- sametmax 7y agoRich is a relative term. You can't have everybody that is rich. You are only rich to relative to somebody who is not. I've lived in West Africa for 2 years, and here you have plenty of "rich man of the village". But you would not consider them rich yourself.
- makotech222 7y agoYeah, rich is a relative term, it just seemed like what you actually meant in your post was that Marxism leads to everyone being poor, which is patently false.