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.
Yoshie:
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: .... Hugo Chavez is Aristotle's idea of demagogue.
_of course_: I referred to the rich as Ari's "employers." That doesn't mean he was wrong on everthing, though. Yoshie:
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: ...
exactly. I don't see what we're disagreeing about here. 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.
me:
> 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?
Yoshie:
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.
I thought I made it clear that I was talking about future trends, not the present. There was also a question mark at the end of my sentence. Lula has to be reelected for the MST to gain a corporatist relationship. And that's likely not enough. please make a greater effort to understand what I'm saying. -- Jim Devine / "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -- Nuremberg Tribunal
