마치 민주주의 자체인 것처럼 씨불려 지고 잇은 선거, 3권분립 따위는
실제로는 민주주의와는 정말 관계 없는 제도 라고 햇지요??..
지배 계급인 왕권과 귀족과 성직자을 밀어낸 부루조아들이 가장 먼저 한 일은
자신들의 권력을 영원히 보존하는 제도를 만드는 것이엿습니다..
그들이 싫어 하는 것은 변화..또는 개혁입니다..
혁명은 자다가도 벌썩 일어나 경기를 할 만큼 싫어 합니다..
이들은 권력이 집중되엇을때 무슨 일이 일어나는가를 자신들이 직접 해 봣기 때문에
누구 보다도 그것을 잘 알 고 잇엇습니다..
이들은 필사적으로 권력이 집중되는 것을 막앗고...그것을 제도화 시켯습니다..
그것이 행정부를 입법부에서 분리 시킨 것이고...그것도 안심이 되지 않아...사법부를 분리 하고 ..
이것은 아예 ...선거를 할수 없게 만들고...늙어 되 질때 까지 해 처 먹고 살게 만들엇습니다.
인민들이 선거를 통해 입법권력, 행정권력을 장악하더라도...사법 권력은 선거를 통해 장악 할 수 없습니다.
그것이 왜 사법권력을 기어코 3권 분립에 낑가 넣은 이유입니다.
아무리 법을 만들고, 집행을 하려 해도....그것 위법...땅땅땅....하면...끝..
결국......인민들이 선거를 통해서 할 수 잇는 것이래야....
그들이 이미 만들어 놓은 법안에서의 티도 나지 않는 작은 미시적인 변화 뿐 입니다.
인민들이 그것을 벗어나려 하는 순간....그것 위법 땅땅땅.......하게 되어 잇습니다.
민주주의란...다수가 원하는 것을 구현 하게 하는 정치적인 기술입니다.
그런데 지금의 서구 민주주의은 ....마무리 다수가 무엇을 하려 해도...할 수 없게 구조되 되어 잇는
태생적인 억압 기술입니다.
법원의 이런 태생적인 반 민주적, 파쇼적인, 보신의 기능이...현대 민주주의만의 특징이라 할 수 잇느냐??
궂이 현대 민주주의체체만이 아니더라도, 역사에서 사법부가 체체 수호를 위해 어떤 역할을 하엿는지는 쉽게 알 수 잇습니다.
아래는 마이클 허드슨의 글입니다..
허드슨의 글이 늘 그렇다듯 ...항상 생각할 거리를 던저 주지요..
Should There be a Supreme Court? Its Role Has Always Been Anti-DemocraticBY MICHAEL HUDSON
“Brown, J., an’ Harlan, J., is discussin’ th’ condition in th’ Roman Impire befure th’ fire …” Political cartoon by Frederick Opper, 1890. Library of Congress.
Vested interests create “checks and balances” primarily to make political systems non-responsive to demands for social reform. Historically, therefore, the checks are politically unbalanced in practice. Instead of producing a happy medium, their effect often has been to check the power of the people to assert their interests at the expense of the more powerful. Real reform requires a revolution – often repeated attempts. The Roman Republic suffered five centuries of fighting to redistribute land and cancel debts, all of which failed as the oligarchy’s “checks” imposed deepening economic dependency and imbalance.
The Supreme Court is America’s most distinctive check. Its deepening bias since its takeover by “conservatives” claiming to be “originalist” interpreters of the constitution, has led to the most widespread protests since Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the court in the 1930s by expanding its membership to create a more democratic majority. Although appointed by presidents and consented to by Congress, the judges’ lifetime tenure imposes the ideology of past elections on the present.
So why are they needed at all? Why not permit Congress to make laws that reflect the needs of the time? The Court’s judges themselves have pointed out that if Congress doesn’t like their rulings, it should pass its own laws, or even a constitutional amendment, to provide a new point of reference.
That is not a practical solution in today’s world. The most obvious reason is that Congress is locked in a stalemate, unable to take a firm progressive step because of how far the U.S. political as well as judicial system has long been dominated by corporate and financial interests.
(지금의 한국 정치와 꼭 같습니다....재미나는 것은 이런것이 비단 미국 뿐만 아니라 민주주의를 표방하고 잇는 나라 특히 한인들이 배우지 못해 환장하는 서구 선진국가 모두에서 일어나고 잇는 현상이다는 것이고...
더욱 고약한 것은 ...다른 대안이 없다는 것입니다.
이들 국가들의 유별난 중국에 대한 시세움과 빈정거림은 ...더 이상 사상이나 체제의 우열 따위로는 설명되지 않습니다.
민주주의와 공산주의라는 기준으로는 설명될 수 없는 너무 많은 것들을 중국은 보여주고 잇고..
사람들은 다른 접근을 하기 시작 햇습니다.
그것 말고 다른것도 잇다...그걸 이야기 해 보자......는 것이지요.
그들의 이념적 패가르로 강요하는 짱골라 사냥질이 얼마나 더 계속될 수 잇는지
자신들의 민주주의와 민족주의에 대한 양심적 신념을 자랑 하고 싶어 그들 보다 더 짱꼴라 사냥질에 환장을 떨어되고 잇는 조샌징 쥐쇗끼들은 또 어떤 달라진 쌍판으로 중국을 보려 할 것인지..........
두고 보면 되겟지요..
다른소리가 요절을 하지 않는 이상 다른소리 생전에 볼 수 잇을 것입니다.
wielding enormous sums of money to corrupt the election process since the Citizens United ruling in 2010 even at the nomination stage to determine the candidates.
시티즌 유나이트 판결 같은 것은 꼭 알아 두시기 바랍니다.
-미국의 민주주의 체체 에서 개인이 개인의 이익의 극대화를 위해 정치자금을 조성하고 로비를 하는것과 꼭 같이...법인도 그리 할 수 잇다....라는 판결로.....미국의 민주주의가 사실상의 금권주의 올리아키 손아귀에 잇음을 미 대 법원이 확인해준 판결입니다.
다른소리가....유별나게 트럼프를 싫어 하고 미국식 민주주의에만 쩌러 살고 잇다는 것이 감추지지 않는 한 미 민주당 지지자에게 이 이야기를 해 봣다고 햇지요.
-니들은 이런것도 민주주의라고 하냐??
-이런 금권체제가 니들이 그리도 싫어 하는 중국의 독제 권력과 무슨 차이가 잇다고 생각하냐?
-중국 공산당의 권력은 인민들로 부터 나온다....공산당에 감히 맞써는 때 부자는 없다
-니들 미국의 민주주의는 인민들로 부터 표를 받아 권력이 되지만...월가만을 위해 일 한다...이런 것은 이율배반이다.
-중국 공산당원의 권력과 월가의 권력중 어느쪽이 더 정당하다고 생각하나?
-나는 민주주의자도 아니고 공산주의자도 아니지만...최소 민주주의가 공산주의 보다 더 우월한 체제라고 함부러 말 못 하겟다.
여러분도....민주주의 운운하는 양아치 쇗끼들과 이런 이야기 해 보세요..
재밋습니다....
이럴때는 어둘한 영어가 오히려 더 설득력을 갖습니다...
유창한 영어로 씨불거리면...이 쇗끼 미국에서 공부한 놈이다고 바로 생각할 것이고....
그 정도를 들먹이는 자들과는 대화를 피 하려고 하겟지요..
The Federalist Society has embarked on a five-decade lobbying effort to groom and promote judges to serve the vested interests.[1] When today’s Supreme Court act as mediums to ask what the original drafters of the Constitution wanted or meant, they simply are using these ghostly spirits as proxies for today’s ruling elites.
Long before the U.S. Supreme Court’s “originalist” seances rejecting as unconstitutional laws that most Americans want – on the excuse that they are not what the wealthy New England merchants and southern slave-owners who drafted the Constitution
(미국 연방헌법의 초안을 작성한 세력들이 ...바로 이들 미 식민지 신흥 부호들, 노예주들 이엇다는 것입니다....
마이클 허드슨은 미국의 이런 민주주의가 고대 로마나 아테네의 과두주의와 조금도 다르지 않다는 것을 이야기 합니다...
즉....마치 인류의 보편적인 가치라도 되는냥 ...앙앙 거리는 그 서구식 민주주의가 ...미안하지만 시작 부터 ...민주주의완 아무 상관이 없는 ..과두체체의 이익을 보호하고 유지하기 위한 체체라는 것이고....그들이 왜 그리도 이가 갈릴만큼 선거나 3권 분립에만 미처 날튀는 가장 직접적인 이유입니다...
선거나 3권 분립이 없다면...인민들은 즉각 자신들의 힘을 조직화 할 것이며...그 힘으로 올리아키를 위한 민주주의가 아닌 ..자신들을 위한 민주주의를 만들려고 할 것이고...이들을 지배 하기 위해서는 끊임없는 쿠테타와 압제가 필요합니다.........
그래서는 자신들을 지키기 위한 영구한 체체를 유지 할 수 없습니다 ) would have intended – classical Greek and Roman oligarchies created their own judicial checks against the prospect of Sparta’s kings, Athenian popular assemblies and Roman consuls enacting laws at the expense of the vested interests.
Sparta had two kings instead of just one, requiring their joint agreement on any new rules. And just in case they might join together to limit the wealth of the oligarchs, they were made subject to a council of ephors to “advise” them. A kindred Roman spirit called for two consuls to head the Senate. To ward against their joining to cancel debts or redistribute land – the constant demand of Romans throughout the Republic’s five centuries, 509-27 BC – the Senate’s meetings could be suspended if religious authorities found omens from the flight of birds or other airy phenomena. These always seemed to occur when a challenge to the oligarchy seemed likely to pass.
The historian Theodor Mommsen called this tactic “political astrology.” The most blatant attempt occurred in 59 BC when Julius Caesar was elected consul and proposed an agrarian law to settle some of Pompey’s veterans as well as urban plebs on public land in Italy. Additional land was to be bought from private owners, using funds from Pompey’s campaign in Asia Minor.
(허드슨은 케사르의 죽음의 원인을 케사르의 개혁에 대한 로마 올리아키들의 저항으로 죽~~~ 설명해 왓습니다)
Cato the Younger led the Roman Senate’s Optimates who feared Caesar’s (or anyone’s) popularity. Opposing any change in the status quo, he started one of his famous all-day speeches. Caesar ordered him led away, but many senators followed Cato out, preventing a vote from being taken. Caesar then simply bypassed the Senate to put the measure before the Centuriate Assembly, composed largely of army veterans. That was a tactic that the reformer Tiberius Gracchus had perfected after 133 to promote his own land redistribution (for which he was assassinated, the oligarchy’s traditional fallback defense in all epochs).[2]
(그리스 로마 민주정치 만큼 ...독살과 암살이 많앗던 정치체제는 없습니다.....야들에 비하면 현대의 쿠테타는 장난이지요)
When Caesar’s opponents threatened violence to block the popular vote, Pompey threatened to use his own force. And when the time came for the Senate to ratify the law, Caesar and Pompey filled the Forum with their soldiers, and a large crowd gathered. Cato’s son-in-law, M. Calpurnius Bibulus was Caesar’s annoying co-consul, and tried to suspend the voting by claiming to see bad omens, making public business illegal.
Caesar overruled Bibulus, based on his own higher authority as pontifex maximus, leading Bibulus to declare the rest of the year a sacred period in which no assemblies could be held or votes taken. But the crowd drove him away and broke his insignia of consulship, the ceremonial fasces carried by his lictors, and beat the tribunes allied with him. Cato likewise was pushed away when he tried to force his way to the platform to block the vote. He and Bibulus fled, and Caesar’s bill was passed, including a clause requiring all senators to take an oath to adhere to it. Bibulus went home and sulked, insisting that the entire year’s laws be nullified because they were passed under threat of violence. It was the oligarchy, however, that settled matters by assassinating Caesar and other advocates of land and debt reform.(부채탕감은 마이클 허드슨의 오랜 주장입니다..)
Athens, which turned oligarchic in the 4th century BC after losing the Peloponnesian War with Sparta, used a tactic closer to today’s Supreme Court by trying to subject laws to conformity with an alleged “ancestral constitution” that presumably should never be changed – at least in a way that would favor democracy. Claiming to restore the supposed constitution of Solon, the Thirty Tyrants installed by Sparta’s oligarchy in 404 BC downgraded the Athenian boule’s governing five hundred citizens into a merely “advisory” group whose views had no official weight.[3]
The great watershed in Athenian history had been Solon’s seisachtheia – literally “shedding of [debt] burdens” in 594 BC, cancelling personal debts that bound debtors in near bondage. New demands for debt cancellation and land redistribution remained the primary democratic demands for the next four centuries. Androtion (ca. 344 BC), a follower of the oligarchic Isocrates, sought to claim the authority of Solon while denying that he had actually cancelled debts, claiming that he merely revalued the coinage, weights and measures to make debts more easily payable.[4] But there was no coinage in Solon’s time, so this attempt to rewrite history was anachronistic. That often happens when mediums claim to channel the spirit of the dead who cannot speak.
In a similar tradition, the authors of America’s constitution created the Supreme Court to provide a check on the danger that political evolution might lead Congress to pass laws threatening oligarchic rule.(미국의 3권 분립의 목적이기도 합니다) There no longer is a pontifex to block democratic lawmaking by claiming to read auspices in the flight of birds or other airy phenomena. Instead, there is a more secular subordination of new laws to the principle that they must not be changed from what was intended by the authors of the Constitution – as interpreted by their counterpart elites in today’s world. This approach fails to take into account how the world is evolving and how the legal system needs to be modernized to cope with such change.
(이런것도 중국혁명 이후의 중국의 변화과정과 비교해 보시기 바랍니다..
다른소린 중국의 체체를 현존하는 가장 완벽한 변증체제라고 햇습니다..
중국 만큼 엄청난 변화를 한 체제는 없다는 것이고...
이것이 지구상의 그 어떤 체체도 갖지 못하는 중국의 힘이라고 햇지요?
다른소리 말이 맞는지 틀린지도 다른소리 생전에 확인 해 볼 수 잇겟지요..)
I have found it to be an axiom of the history of legal philosophy that if the popular political spirit is for democratic reform – especially supporting taxes and other laws to prevent the polarization of wealth between the vested interests and the economy at large – the line of resistance to such progress is to insist on blocking any change from “original” constitutional principles that supported the power of vested interests in the first place.
미국인들의 이런 방식은 ..우리 헌법에 명시된 자유민주주의 시장 경제...만 줄창 씨불 거려 되는 할렐루야 미친개들의 모습과
조금도 다르지 않습니다.
배웟겟지요........미 양아치 쇗끼들은 그런식으로 씨불 거리더라....고
박그뇌에 필적하는 백치 아다다............윤성열...
야 해골에는 오로지 헌법 조문만 프린트 되어 잇습니다.....
그것이 무슨 의미 인지..어떻게 해석되고 적용되어저야 하는지 따위는 이 자의 지능을 초과하는 영역입니다.
The U.S. political system has become distorted by the power given to the Supreme Court enabling it to block reforms that the majority of Americans are reported to support.(한국의 헌제나 대법원의 경우도 마찬가지입니다..) The problem is not only the Supreme Court, to be sure. Most voters oppose wars, support public healthcare for all and higher taxes on the wealthy. But Congress, itself captured by the oligarch donor class, routinely raises military spending, privatizes healthcare in the hands of predatory monopolies and cuts taxes for the financial rent-seeking class while pretending that spending money on government social programs would force taxes to rise for wage-earners.
The effect of the corporate capture of Congress as well as the Supreme Court as the ultimate oligarchic backstop is to block Congressional politics as a vehicle to update laws, taxes and public regulation in keeping with what voters recognize to be modern needs. The Supreme Court imposes the straitjacket of what America’s 18th-century slaveowners and other property owners are supposed to have wanted at the time they wrote the Constitution.
James Madison and his fellow Federalists were explicit about their aim. They wanted to block what they feared was the threat of democracy by populists, abolitionists and other reformers threatening to check their property “rights” as if these were natural and inherent. The subsequent 19th century’s flowering of classical political economists explaining the logic for checking rentier oligarchies was far beyond what they wanted. Yet today’s Supreme Court’s point of reference is still, “What would the authors of the U.S. Constitution, slaveowners fearful of democracy, have intended?” (오늘날 미 대법원의 기준점은 여전히 250년전의 민주주의를 두려워햇던 노예 소유자들로만 구성된 미국 헌법을 만든자들의 의도가 무엇이엇을까?"이다...
이들을 흔히 ‘원전주의자’(originalist) ‘원문주의자’(textualist)라고 합니다..
미 합중국 헌법을 쓰여진 문자의 원래 뜻대로 해석해야 한다고 생각하는 사람들로 헌법 입안자들이 낙태권을 생각하지 않았다면 현재의 판사들도 낙태권을 인정하면 안 된다는 식이지요.
그런데 미국의 헌법을 만든 사람들은 250년전의 사람들이고 그때의 문화와 환경은 지금과는 상상조차 할 수 없을 만큼 다릅니다.
미국 건국의 아버지들은 거의 대부분 노예를 소유한 대 부호들이엇고, 조시 워싱턴이 거느리고 잇던 노예들의 강제 노역으로 건설된 도시가 오늘날의 워싱턴 dc입니다.
이 노예제도는 16대 링컨에 의해 공식적으로 철폐된 이후에도 남부 일부주에서는 한동안 계속되엇습니다.
이전자들의 이런 생각이 250년 이후의 현대의 미국을 지배 하고 잇는 유령인 것이지요.
미국 혁명이 혁명이 아닌 반 혁명이다는 주장을 수 없이 올려드렷습니다.
미국독립을 이끌엇던 세력들이 누구엿쓰며,,그들이 기어코 독립을 하려 햇던 진짜 이유가 무엇이엇쓰며,,그들이 자신들의 권력과 부를 지키기위해 고안된 공화정이 무엇을 내용으로 하고 잇는지 등등.....을 이해하지 못 하고서는 지금의 미국사회의 문제를 이해 할 수 없습니다..
중국의 체체에 대한 냉소적인 태도와 비난 만큼은 아니더라도...
최소 사실에 근거한 판단 정도는 해 보시기 바랍니다............
호모 싸피언스의 모습을 하고는 개 돼야지 쥐쇗끼들 처럼 보이는것 보다는
그래도 호모 싸이언스로 보이는 편이 쬐금은 더 폼나 보이지 않나요??
That logic is applied anachronistically to limit every democratic modernization from the right of unionized labor to go on strike, to abortion rights for women, cancellation of student debt and the right of government to tax wealth.
Even if Congress were not too divided and stalemated to write laws reflecting what most voters want, the Supreme Court would reject them, just as it sought for many decades to declare a national income tax unconstitutional under the theory of “takings.”
http://www.koreatimes.com/article/1057250
-1861. 4. 12 남북전쟁이 시작된다. 링컨대통령은 전비조달을 위해 1862년 IRS 를 만들어 소비세를 도입하고 소득세도 부과하였다. 그러나 전쟁 후 소득세는 폐지되고 연방정부의 세수는 주류세와 담배세로 충당되었다.
The Supreme Court can be expected to block any law threatening the victory of the Thatcherite and Reaganomics doctrine of privatization, “small” government unable to challenge the power of wealth (but big enough to crush any attempts by labor, women or minorities to promote their own interests), a state of affairs that is an anomaly for a nation claiming to be a democracy.
A nation’s constitution should have the flexibility to modernize laws, taxes and government regulatory power to remove barriers to broadly-based progress, living standards and productivity. But these barriers have been supported by oligarchies through the ages. That was why the Supreme Court was created in the first place.The aim was to leave the economy in the control of property holders and the wealthiest families.
(미국에서 대법원을 만든 이유가 이것입니다....다른것은 다 치장입니다...
미국의 건국의 아버지들이 대 법원을 만들고, 3권 분립의 원칙을 만든 이유는 단지 오로지 딱 하나...올리아키들의 권력과 부를 지키고....인민들이 원하는 변화를 불가능하게 만드는 것 ....입니다.....다른것은 다 거짓말 입니다...
갈보가 처녀 라고 나발 거리는 것과 꼭 같습니다..
지금의 한국의 민주주의자들이 씨불 거리는 법치, 견제와 균형, 대화와 타협 따위도 ...미국의 올리아키들이 하는 짓과 꼭 같습니다.....
신종 mz 쥐쇗끼때들...
야들은 자신들은 올리아키가 아니면서....민주주의와 법치과 상식과 합리성등을 치장하여 세련되게 올리아키들의 세계를 만들어 가고 잇습니다..
야들에게선 젊음이 주는 신선함 따윈 도무지 느껴지지 않고 ....
익기도 전에 미리서 알아서 썩어 뭉그러저 버린 새앙쥐 쐣끼들의 역겨운 모습만 보입니다.
가장 전형적인 조샌징 간접씨 쌍판..
누군가 다른소리에게 이조역사 500년 최고의 간접시 유자광의 초상화를 그려 달라고 요구햇다면
바로 이 쌍판을 그려 주엇겟다고 햇지요??..
저들 mz 정치인이라는 자들의 꼴쌍이 ....이자의 쌍판에서 딱 주름만 제거한 모습입니다.
That anachronistic judicial philosophy is helping turn the United States into a failed state by empowering a wealthy minority to reduce the rest of the population to economic dependency.
We are repeating the economic polarization of ancient Greece and Rome that I have described in my recent book The Collapse of Antiquity. The 7th– and 6th-century BC crisis of personal debt and land concentration led to social revolution by reformers (“tyrants,” not originally a term of invective) in Corinth, Sparta and other Greek-speaking city-states and Aegean islands. Solon was appointed archon to resolve the crisis in Athens. Unlike reformers in other Greek cities, he did not redistribute the land, but he did cancel the debts and removed the land’s crop-payment stones. The ensuing 6th century saw Solon’s successors lay the groundwork for Athenian democracy.
But the next three centuries saw the rise of creditor oligarchies throughout Greece and Italy, using debt as a lever to monopolize land and reduce citizens to bondage. These increasingly aggressive oligarchies fought, with more and more overt violence, against new reformers seeking to cancel debts and redistribute the land to prevent the economy falling into austerity, clientage and reliance on the dole. Their oligarchic ideology was much like that of today’s right-wing Supreme Court in its approach to constitutional law.(지금의 대한민국에서의 법치, 공정,사회정의 운운하는 자들의 방식과 꼭 같습니다...
여기엔 보수나 진보의 구분도 없고....남녀의 구분도...세대의 구분도 없습니다...
The common denominator is an age-old drive to prevent democratic change, above all by using wealth as a means of controlling the political process. That is the philosophy outlined in the Powell Memo, and in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling permitting the political campaign system to be financialized and, in effect, privatized in the hands of the Donor Class.
As in classical antiquity, the exponential rise in debt has polarized wealth ownership. Personal debt bondage no longer exists, but most home buyers and wage earners are obliged to take on a working-lifetime debt burden to obtain a home of their own, an education to get a job to qualify for mortgage loans to buy their home, and credit-card debt simply to make ends meet. The result is debt deflation as labor is obliged to spend an increasing proportion of its income on debt service instead of goods and services. That slows the economy, while creditors use their rising accumulation of wealth to finance the inflation of housing prices, along with stock and bond prices – with yet more debt financing.
The conflict between creditors and debtors is a red thread running throughout American history, from the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s to the monetary deflation of the 1880s as “hard money” creditor interests rolled back prices and incomes to be paid in gold, increasing the control of bondholders over labor. Today, U.S. debt and tax policy is passing out of the Congress to the Supreme Court, whose members are groomed and vetted to make sure that they will favor financial and other rentier wealth by leading the Court to impose the founders’ pre-democratic philosophy of constitutional law despite the past few centuries of political reforms that, at least nominally, have endorsed democracy over oligarchy.
The victory of rentier wealth has led to the deindustrialization of America and the resulting predatory diplomacy as its economy seeks to extract from foreign countries the products that it no longer is producing at home. This is why foreign countries are moving to pursue a philosophy rejecting debt deflation, privatization and the shift of economic planning from elected governments to financial centers from Wall Street to the City of London, the Paris Bourse and Japan.
Any resilient society’s constitution should be responsive to the evolution of economic, technological, environmental and geopolitical dynamics. U.S. legal philosophy reflects mainstream economics in trying to lock in a set of principles written by creditors and other rentiers fearful of making the financial system, tax system and distribution of wealth more conducive to prosperity than to austerity and economic polarization. While there no longer is an attempt to roll back the clock to impose the outright slavery that most framers of the Constitution endorsed, the spread of debt deflation and debt dependency has become a form of economic bondage that is the modern “conservative” counterpart to the racial slavery of old. It is what the “original” power elite are thought to have wanted if we choose to go back in a time machine and ask them, instead of looking toward a less oligarchic future.
Notes.
[1] The Lewis Powell memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on August 23, 1971 laid out this plan. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/. For a review of how this almost conspiratorial propaganda and censorship attack was financed see Lewis H. Lapham, “Tentacles of Rage: The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history,” Harpers, September, 2004. Available at: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm.
[2] See Cassius Dio, Roman History 38.2.2. I discuss this affair in The Collapse of Antiquity, chapter 18.
[3] Athēnaion Politeia 35.2 and Xenophon, Hellenica 2.3.2 and 11.
[4] Plutarch, Solon 15.2.
Michael Hudson’s new book, The Destiny of Civilization, will be published by CounterPunch Books next month.