What Thucydides says re democracy is that they need good leaders, who put the polis first, and don't appeal to the absolute fucking worst instincts of the people in the service of their own aggrandizement. Might I suggest that we Americans should keenly appreciate that insight?
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @IdiotTracker
...right, so Thucydides thinks that the best people to govern the polis are its elite leaders, not the demos itself. He had a dim view of the average Athenian's ability to decide for themselves what the polis ought to do, and thought they'd be better off advised by their betters
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @IdiotTracker
Remember that Athens was a direct democracy, not a representative one. The position of "the people should select wise elites to lead them and make all of the decisions" was the oligarchic position in Athens.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
But Thucydides never said anything like that. He said Pericles WAS a wise person that the people DID select, repeatedly, despite his being willing to say unpopular things & not cater to the worst in them.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @IdiotTracker
The issue here is you are trying to fit Thuc into a modern conception of where the democratic/oligarchic line is. 'the people need a leader to tell them what to do' (instead of, 'the people need an executive to do what they tell them') *is* the oligarchic position in Athens.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
But if you're going to describe Thucydides as anti-democratic in relation to how he writes about Sparta or somewhere else, the exact line between what was considered democratic or oligarchic in Athens seems less pertinent than a more general idea of democracy.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @IdiotTracker
The issue is what seems democratic or oligarchic in Greece. No Greek would describe *any* modern state as a democracy - everything we call a democracy they'd likely frame as either oligarchies or 'mixed constitutions.'
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @IdiotTracker
Modern democracies are all systems whereby the people select a few elites from a larger pool of elites to make decisions on their behalf (because all modern democracies are substantially based on the Roman Republic, itself an oligarchy/mixed constitution, dep. on who you ask)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
Importantly, people like Cleon and Alcibiades weren't presented as common people or following the will of common people; Thucydides saw them as cynical aristocrats, manipulating out of selfish, egotistic motives.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @IdiotTracker ja @BretDevereaux
If Pericles were presented in contrast to leaders that just did whatever the voters wanted, the argument he represents oligarchy would perhaps make more sense to me. But he's presented in contrast to demagogues. Leaders, I think he would say, matter, for better or worse.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
Again, in the Greek context, "Leaders matter" is an undemocratic statement! The democratic Athenian asserts that the demos is wise - it does not require guidance, it *gives* guidance. You see that language all the time in Athenian court speeches, asking juries to message-send.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
We see that language in our democracy too; it doesn't make it right.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystäKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.