Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

American Democracy vs. Ancient Athens (Patreon)

Published:
2023-03-12 15:14:00
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Hey everyone, here's the American/Athenian democracy video. I've been trying to figure out for a while (about a year? at least) how to make an educational video on democracy that the public might actually want to watch. It's not a topic with dramatic weight like fascism or socialism, so I think it tends to come across as a flat/dry subject. This was my attempt to solve that puzzle and present it in an interesting lens.

I hope you guys like it! This was about three months of work on my end (mostly from research but also in production trying to elegantly piece together everything I wanted to say). Thanks so much for everyone still supporting me through that time even with the lack of uploads. I'm planning on doing another patrons only video as a little thank you.

But also here, again as always, thank you.

- Ryan

Files

Previews only

American vs. Athenian Democracy

An exploration and comparison of democracy in classical Athens and the United States of America. If you want to support the channel, here are the best ways to do it: 1) Watch the full video 2) Subscribe if you haven't 3) Share with a friend 4) Support me with a small donation on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rchapman 0:00 - Intro 01:10 - Democracy in Athens 24:04 - Democracy in America 39:16 - Outro Sources: Pericles of Athens - Donald Kagan The Classical Athenian Democracy - David Stockton The Life of Greece - Will Durant Athens on Trial - Jennifer Roberts Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece - Raaflaub, Ober & Wallace The Athenian Constitution - Unknown (probably a talented student under Aristotle) Lives - Plutarch Politics - Aristotle The Peloponnesian War - Thucydides Democracy - Paul Cartledge Preface to Democratic Theory - Robert Dahl On Democracy - Robert Dahl Empire of Liberty - Gordon Wood Founding Brothers - Joseph Ellis The Radicalism of the American Revolution - Gordon Wood The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution - Bernard Bailyn The Federalist - Hamilton, Madison & Jay The Rise of American Democracy - Sean Wilentz The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution - Jonathan Elliot

Comments

Thōmās

1 minor correction, the term "rēs pūblica" (which it is more typically singular, not plural, though "rēs" can be both singular nominative or plural nominative). The term means "public affair" or more literally "public thing". Worth noting "rēs" is used a lot in this way, such as "rēs rusticae" (country affairs, such as farming). I did want to provide some other food for thought. If legend is to be believed, the idea of assemblies is much older than Athens, even in Greece, notably from the Spartans, which Lycurgus (if he is truly real) understood the pitfalls of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, and aimed to create a system that encompassed each. Further, Rome's struggle for a free government is almost overlapping in the same timeline as Athens. While Athens culture would later greatly influence Rome, Rome's government (which even under the kings still had assemblies and a senate), was originally largely influenced by the Etruscans. Now the Etruscans could have been influenced by the Greeks, their writing system (which Latin eventually adopted in their own form), however, this still greatly predates Solon or any of the Athenian democratic reforms. Rome is traditionally founded in 753 BC with kings, a senate and at least one assembly. So the concept of people having a say in government is pretty old, even compared to Athenian Democracy. Now, more to the point I think you're trying to make is that Democracy in it's more purist form came about in Athens, and this is possible I think. But in Rome, this would not occur really until the end of the Republic when the Senate's power is effectively removed by demagogues controlling the masses, in which the balance of power shifts from balanced, to the hands of the people, but really the demagogues with great propaganda, and finally after a few civil wars, you get the institution of monarchy re-instated in Rome, which the sibilance of it's Republic. So first off, I just wanted to dispel the notion that Athens had some great influence over the early Kingdom of Rome and the early Republic, which the Romans undoubtedly had contact with Greeks, specifically in Magna Graecia, but as far as influence withing their political structure, this would be highly debatable in my opinion. I think one of the more influential writers too, that you have made a video out of, but didn't mention here, is Polybius, who is probably one of the best sources for understanding what a Republic is. And while it's true that it's had all sorts of definitions, ranging from basically anything without a king, to the structure I promote (an equally mixed government), it appears to me that a few of the founders (as mentioned in your second timeline) agreed with the idea of Aristotle's politeia, which would be akin to the Republic that Polybius finds in the middle of the 2nd Century BCE. In my opinion, I would love to see similar video(s) made about the institutions of Rome and where they come from, as well as that of Sparta (which I am aware we virtually have only Xenophon for this understanding). But the importance placed by Polybius on it's comparison to Rome _instead_ of that of Athens, which he promptly ignores, seems to suggest Rome was _not_ similar to Athens and seeing that Rome was the foundation of the United States, I find these concepts much better. Romans, specifically in the middle to late Republic, found that their government was better than any Greek government, and was one of the few things they gladly held as above the Greeks. I only say this, in that discounting Rome as something similar or even a byproduct of Athens, is just not true in what I have read. They are different, and were forming and finding themselves during the same timeframe. The Roman Republic can really be summed up with Senātus Populusque Rōmānus, the Roman Senate and the Roman People. This was the hallmark of the Republic. These two classes competing but never fulling having control of the political institutions was important throughout the majority of Roman politics. And the Republic lasted for almost 500 years. Lastly, while the US is undoubtedly _much_ more democratic (in appearance, though this is a conversation for another time in the perceived affects of fundamental changes) now than it was during it's founding, the people during the beginning of the US only had a guaranteed say in the election of it's representatives, the House of Representatives. Senators were elected by state legislatures, and while some states opted for popular vote to determine the electoral college electors, several states opted just to have the state legislatures choose, which is where the constitution places this power and jurisdiction. It would take the 17th amendment passed in the early 20th century to switch senators to being elected by popular vote of the states. Currently the state legislatures can still take back the power to choose electoral college electors. This is, in my opinion, why the US is still not really a democracy, anymore than it is an aristocracy or a monarchy. Just as it is not proper to call the Kingdom of Rome a democracy, simply because the people had a say, and just as it's not proper to call the British Crown during the 18th century a democracy because it has a house of commons, so too is it improper call the United States a democracy, simply because the people have consent and a say in government. It is truly much more complicated and much more akin to Rome, and Aristotle's idea of the politeia, than it is to Athenian Democracy. Now, to be clear, I am not discounting Athenian Democracy, but I am trying to remove it from the pedestal which I believe it to wrongly be placed. It does have influence over Western thought and has produced some of the best thinkers, but the it's institutions and it's ideas concerning Democracy were not copied largely at all. Rome's core values do not appear to stim specifically from Athens, and Rome is undoubtedly the most important ancient civilization to study in preparation for the United States. The institutions of Rome are much easier to find resemblance in the modern US than that of Athens. The reason I harp on this is I have concerns with the United States becoming ever more democratic (as people continue to find plenty of undemocratic characteristics, placed their intentionally usually as a road block and a check on power) which will result in the same turbulent end as that of the Roman Republic and the ascent into monarchy. I want to end this with, I did enjoy the video and I think you did a great job. Just because I disagree with it doesn't make it less fascinating and less credible. To that I say bravo.

Paul Favour
>>103892669

Thanks for your interesting comment and comparison of Roman vs Athenian government models. I am puzzled by your remark on the US becoming too democratic. Aristocracy for those in power. Democracy for the citizens. I don't think the United States has changed all that much since the end of the second World War. Maybe the Populists are lit up a bit more than usual by the internet but the power seems to reside at the same address it has for the last 75 years or so.

Paul Favour

Thank you Ryan for another well crafted presentation. Happy to be a patron. About the US being a democracy, I think it meets a the modern definition and it certainly is more so than China or Russia - But, I think capitalism is more at the heart of how our government functions: along the lines of the Pareto principle 80-20 rule. Democracy seems mostly to provide the Recognition that citizens measure their self worth in society by. I think the Jeffersonian idea was that revolutions will be needed from time to time, and that democracy might be a way to avoid bloodshed. 34 years after he died the US tested that idea. Did American democracy provide a way to facilitate a change in government in 1860? The solution was a strong Federal government that time.

Thōmās
>>103892669

You are correct, there haven't been too many changes since then, but the changes at the beginning of the 20th century were what I was addressing. Along with populists being more lit up of course. I believe, for instance, that the 17th amendment not only failed at what it was intended but was a horrible idea. Now, I say this knowing that there were already state politicians who would campaign by letting everybody know which senator they would vote for, but even that would be preferable I think, even if it's not as intended. Also, there is an issue with the practical government of the US as well. The house, while the people vote, is almost an oligarchy, in that 435 (+3 non voting) people cannot actually represent the amount of citizens, and money has corrupted that institution. Further to run in the senate often requires absurd money for campaigning a whole state for a popular vote, that in it's own way has also become more oligarchic. I fear, that mixed with large scale populism occurring, this is a perfect storm for the disintegration of our institutions even further.

Paul Favour
>>103892669

Thanks for the clarifications. I think Ryan’s video speaks to the fundamental problems with American democracy pretty succinctly. Too much “democracy’ vs too many checks to prevent it from becoming too populist. America ends up with a hybrid that is not very democratic at the Federal level. It would be interesting to have a House based on 250,000 thousand men, women and children per District, or 1400 representatives. I don’t doubt that money would still be able to affect it. And maybe 50 Supreme Justices – One for each state – elected for 6 year terms. And end the electoral college. Set the Senate count by the wealth of states – The States contribution to the GNP. In every case, I fear people would find work arounds. Human Social Behavior is based on some pretty shaky ground. People still determine reality by stories, making propaganda very effective. Pride is still a driving force in power struggles. Violence is held at bay by authorized Violence that we attempt to govern. As for me, I’m happy I was born here and that my life was not often molested by people. It is a lottery where one is born and even then, everyone everywhere is subject to the genetic lottery. I not saying that I’ve given up, but I do think it is best to be a realist. Thanks for listening.

Thōmās
>>103892669

While I agree that he does address these, my issue is continuing to use Democracy as the word to describe the US. Primarily because the understanding for common people seems to be unchecked rule of the people, which is not what was intended, nor what is wanted, in my opinion. And correct the people will continuously find a way to work around things, and just like in security, it's not about preventing the inevitable, but trying to stall or deter for as long as possible. Money will undoubtedly affect all systems involved, but how much affect is what I'm trying to mitigate, though I admit that my proposals are likely not only never going to be accepted, but it would be similar to trying to opening a can of gas and trying to put it back into the can. I will concede we are already on a path very similar to the Roman Republic. The House should be a representative Democracy and you cannot accurate call the current state of the House of Representatives a representative Democracy in my opinion. Those elected are typically so far removed from their constituents to properly represent anything other than the largest donors to their campaign. The Senate should be a Representative Aristocracy, which again, campaigning a state like Texas requires enormous resources, which is a problem, in my opinion. I'm not sure I think that the Senate number should be altered. I find 2 per state to be sufficient, though your proposed system could be something to investigate. I don't think there are fundamental issues with the EC nor with the federal judicial system. They point for the federal judicial system is that these people are to be career politicians that are not swayed by voting so that they can hopefully make the correct legal assessments without input from a mob or populists. I'll end this with, I think the biggest thing I can try to help facilitate is to push away the notion that the Federal government should be democratic, but rather the system of checks and balances, typically represented in a Republic, such as the Roman Republic, the Republic of Venice, or even the Spartan Politeia (Crete and Carthage would be honorable mentions here). That as well as continuing to educate people on where our systems come from, and why they are the way they are. This is not to say they were created perfectly and never to touch them, but you typically cannot alter something you don't fundamentally understand and expect a good outcome. And I will admit that I often dabble in the ideal rather than the real, and I apologize for that. I try to see if I can learn from the ideal and apply to the real world. It's why I often look at the Roman Republic and it's journey or decent into Monarchy under the Empire. I appreciate your responses, and I appreciate all of Ryan's work.

Paul Favour
>>103892669

Thank you again for an interesting and well written group of comments and thoughts. I really have enjoyed the exchange. So, I will leave with this: My remarks on changing our various institutions were somewhat bombastic and mostly meant to entertain. I must admit I am a bit jealous when I look back on Madison and Co having the chance to invent a form of government. I remember reading somewhere about a grad student who somehow found himself writing a constitution for the newly formed Federated States of Micronesia. Creating a new constitution is a pretty rare event in the first place but actually getting to do it is downright amazing. I am interested in the reasoning and political philosophy of current politics more than outcomes in actual government. Unless required, I prefer not to depend on government or the law in my life. Best wishes.

Thōmās
>>103892669

I have enjoyed this exchange as well! I wasn't sure if they were or were not bombastic, so thanks for clearing that up! Agreed, it's a rare event, and pretty incredible with what they came up with, even if it's not perfect. I couldn't agree more with your second to last sentence. I, too, prefer not to depend on government or the law. Best wishes to too you! (P.S. I also apologize for all of my typos)

Raymond Modiz

imo It’s important to distinguish between the federal government and the States in any discussion of democracy in the US. The US was originally conceived of as a sort of United Nations or EU cum defense pact. The President - like the Holy Roman Emperor or the Pope - was (is) chosen by electors. Electors & Senators were chosen by the States not, strictly speaking, by eligible citizens of the State (unless the State decided otherwise). The US Constitution is not *demo*cratic. It is *state*cratic, with a House of Representatives the only democratic organ. It seems to me that "Virginia Democracy vs Ancient Athens" might have been a better subject.

Colin Aulds
>>104433775

I am very generally pro-capitalist but i think you are right. Michael munger did an episode of econtalk recently on industrial policy and he had a very interesting tangent that democracy may be incompatible with a very pure kind of capitalism due to rent-seeking behavior. He concluded that democracy may always devolve into some kind of crony capitalism (but that is still better than the alternatives). The older i get, the more i think that any sort of ‘purist’ political/socioeconomic ideology (socialism, capitalism, fascism, etc) are all inherently unstable and can only work if you believe human beings stop acting like human beings.

Paul Favour
>>104433775

You bring up some excellent points! Capitalism unleashes human productivity well beyond subsistence and therefore provides the fuel for personal advantage and on a state level, warfare. The purposes of personal advantage or state warfare tend to evolve into personal glory (master slave stuff) and on the state side, empire driven by glory minded leadership. I see the Ukraine war in these terms and Elon Musk is the posterchild of the Personal Glory crowd. As to your lament about the instability of governance (of all types)… I Start with this; “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, 1905. Add to that, the nature of human existence; When you are born, for you there is nothing to remember. Every person starts the human growth trajectory over again as a child. In other words, the social nature of humanity does not ever advance. Children need to be protected, teenagers make good believers and warriors, middle agers make good workers and the old ones just want to tell stories. Then comes death for our sample person and replacement with another child. As for violence, it is never far away. Governments use violence to enforce the laws. That works pretty well, but governments are run by people so the problems with government never end. Finally I see this; “States make war, and war makes the state” Charles Tilly. I turned that quote around. I like it better that way. This is what we are seeing in Ukraine. Russia, by attacking the people that live in Ukraine, give those people a common identity. It sort of creates a person with all the foibles and strengths of a person. And that brings us back to where I started up at the top of this tome. Thank for your thoughtful remarks and the suggestion of Michael Munger. I apologize for this long winded ramble. I am one of the old ones.

Cameron Miller
>>104433775

Did I just read a discussion on capitalism on the internet where what people said actually made sense? God bless you, kind sirs. You have restored my faith in humanity.

rchapman
>>104433775

Hey Paul, I think you're making a categorization error when you're picking between 'democracy' and 'capitalism' as labels for how our government functions. Democracy primarily deals with political organization, and capitalism primarily deals with economic organization. So it doesn't really make sense to reject democracy in favor of capitalism as a label. At the risk of being pedantic, the major terms of comparison typically are: democratic/authoritarian (the people control the gov't vs the gov't control the people), capitalistic/socialistic (wealth owned individually vs wealth owned collectively). Maybe a better term for your argument would be to call America not a democracy but an oligarchy. Also yes democracy did not work to avoid the Civil War. But you're also pointing at one of the major examples in American history where that was the case. It's important to remember that slavery lasted until the Civil War precisely because of democracy. Leaders, like Jefferson, wouldn't abolish it until public opinion 'ripened' to the idea (which didn't happen in his lifetime, or ever in the South before the civ war). They didn't want to force its abolition on the American people against their will precisely because they lived in a democracy.

Paradigm Gauge

LOL - okay when I scrolled past this I thought it said "American Democracy vs Ancient Aliens" and I had to scroll back for a second look. Whew.

Lori Rodgers

Wow- I am learning so much. It has always seemed difficult to cause change from the bottom up. I’m fascinated and irritated how women were left out of the equation - when creating the constitution- thank you so much for all this information.