One of the reasons American democracy (and most other democracies, too) don't allow the cooks in the government is that, as you say, "America is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy" not just now, but from the get go.

The east-coast colonies were not set up by yeoman farmers, they were set up by the English crown for the benefit of various English oligarchs. The founding fathers were not working class people, for the most part. They were educated people of privilege, for the most part. Throughout American history, much of the power has been held by very rich people. True, ordinary people had some power, but it was dispersed, difficult to concentrate into a strong force.

The current disproportionate distribution of wealth is so extreme, (in the world, not just in the United States) it is difficult to imagine how this oligarchical rule will be undone. Theoretically, the cooks can take over the kitchen, but the hearths and stew pots are very well defended.

Brilliant response. I certainly agree!

I'm sorry, but this is silly. No one stating that "Donald Trump is threatening Democracy" is equating American Democracy with the Democracy of Ancient Greece. It is simply a shorthand way of stating that Donald Trump's presidency is tarnishing political institutions, and other institutions that are important within modern day democracies, e.g. media, which is true. It does not inherently imply that America is a literal Democracy any more than saying it is sunrise implies that the sun is literally rising and circling the Earth.

Why would anyone want a system in which every cook can govern? Why would anyone want a random selection?

No one stating that "Donald Trump is threatening Democracy" is equating American Democracy with the Democracy of Ancient Greece.

Yes, and that is part of the problem. If people actually read about and understood the democracy of Ancient Greece, they would not be claiming that America was a democracy at all.

This is not simply a matter of using "shorthand" - this is about political illiteracy. People are fundamentally misreading the nature of the institutions in question, to the point where it is flat out disingenuous. The United States is an oligarchy - which is the antonym of democracy. Words matter - we do not get to toss around random terms without an understanding of their history, and then apply them to the exact opposite phenomena.

I have long thought that a random selection of legislators (state level) or congressional representatives would be a good idea. They could not possibly be worse than many of those who served by election.

Simple to set up: select a pool to serve. Eliminate those who are not citizens, not able to read and write, have dementia (though that didn't stop Ronald Reagan), are below the age of 18 [or whatever arbitrary age the people think best] or are very ill. And, of course, who -- if selected -- will not serve.

They serve a fixed term and then they are done. No repeats.

Why would anyone want a system in which every cook can govern? Why would anyone want a random selection?

Because anything less than this is an oligarchy. Governance impacts everyone - so everyone should be put in a position to govern. Anyone who believes that governance requires expertise is still laboring under aristocratic/religious/capitalist views of power distribution.

Yes - perfect. It is very simple concept. I have more faith in the average citizen to govern than I do Hillary Clinton and company.

Of course, the US wasn't set up as a direct democracy. Even in New England, the town councils only worked while the population was small and lived closely together. When villages got bigger, and grew into even small cities, it became unwieldy to have meetings involving several hundred people. So, back in the mid-19th century, they started to switch to other systems--like city councils and mayors.

The US was set up as a representative democracy--something quite different than direct democracy. In the US system (and in most countries' representative systems) there are citizens, there is the state, and there is the parliament or congress. That's just not what the Greeks had.

One can have a monarch in this system (like the UK). It can be a socialist or capitalist country. Most capitalist systems end up with oligarchs, IF there is enough wealth potential in a country. But then, even some poor countries manage to have oligarchs. Bottom up rule (rule by the people) is a non-starter for any large system, or where much money is at stake--and one or the other is usually the case.

I think that the idea of random selection is childish. I can't believe that someone can say that governance does not require expertise. We don't choose our surgeons randomly. We choose our surgeons intelligently. We want the best possible surgeon. That's how things work in real life. That's how they worked in the past and that's how they will work in the future. I can't see any other way that can persist through time.

Yes, The State requires expertise. The institutions of the state -- Commerce Dept., Transportation, Agriculture Department, Treasury, War Department, Health, Education and Welfare -- all these absolutely depend on expertise--and a high level of expertise, at that.

But what goes on in Congress or your state legislature is often quite amateurish. Not always, but often enough. The elected officials aren't supposed to bring all the expertise of The State, which is the permanent government. They are supposed to bring the concerns of the The People to the fore, and pass laws to meet their needs--laws including the Budget.

So, randomly selected officials do not present a problem of expertise. Along with random selection, I would also like to see a lobbyist sundown rule: Any lobbyist paid or paying substantial money to affect legislation would be hanged at sundown in front of whatever corporate office paid for his or her services.

You think that legislature requires no expertise? Anyone can create laws? It's that easy?

I can't believe that someone can say that governance does not require expertise. We don't choose our surgeons randomly. We choose our surgeons intelligently. We want the best possible surgeon.

Have you taken a look at the people in positions of leadership lately? Donald Trump is the leader of the free world. The Terminator was governor of California. Jerry Springer was the mayor of Cincinnati. And now, Kid Rock, The Rock, and Caitlyn Jenner are considering runs for office.

Have you taken a look at the economic state of affairs? Nowhere in the U.S. is the minimum wage sufficient to cover the costs of the average apartment. This is the handiwork of "experts"?! I am not impressed. As George Carlin said: "these are the types of results you would expect from an office temp with a bad attitude." These so-called experts are deeply incompetent if this is the best they can produce. Consider the following facts: in the United States, there are 500,000 homeless people - and there are 3,000,000 empty homes. There are 6 empty homes for every homeless person. The solution to this problem is obvious and simple. But since there are so many "experts" in government, the problem persists. The average Joe could not screw things up any worse than Clinton, Obama, or Trump.

Additionally, the title of this post - like the C.L.R. James book - is "every cook can govern." It is not "every cook can perform surgery." We are making a differentiation between governance and ordinary positions of employment.

But we need to understand the relationship between the division of labor and how power is distributed within government. As I stated, politicians tend to be white males. When we look at the demographics of physicians in the United States over the past 30+ years, 75% of them are white males. Is this a coincidence? I think not! This is not because white males are born with the genetic aptitude to perform surgery. It is because white males are born with power and privilege - which makes it easier for them to end up in high level positions. Not to mention: surgery is expensive! Women and minorities earn significantly less than white men. So not only are white men the surgeons, but they are the ones most likely to afford the surgery, while everyone else simply goes without or is forced to file for bankruptcy.

The reasons that women and minorities are not surgeons is the same reason women and minorities are not in positions of governance. What we are calling "expertise" is the alibi of oppressors. It is easier for us to believe that white men are "experts" than women and minorities. So we need to completely detox our minds of this aristocratic/meritocratic/capitalistic way of thinking and organizing society.

Random selection is not childish. What is childish is continuing to defend and adhere to a system that does not work for the masses of people.

hahahahha @ sundown rule. Right on!

The reasons that women and minorities are not surgeons is the same reason women and minorities are not in positions of governance. What we are calling "expertise" is the alibi of oppressors. It is easier for us to believe that white men are "experts" than women and minorities. So we need to completely detox our minds of this aristocratic/meritocratic/capitalistic way of thinking and organizing society. — Zoneofnonbeing

The point is that people are unequal. Some people are better at certain things than others. This applies to legislature too. Some people have a better sense of what is good and what is bad than others.

I'm sorry, but this is silly. No one stating that "Donald Trump is threatening Democracy" is equating American Democracy with the Democracy of Ancient Greece. It is simply a shorthand way of stating that Donald Trump's presidency is tarnishing political institutions, and other institutions that are important within modern day democracies, e.g. media, which is true. It does not inherently imply that America is a literal Democracy any more than saying it is sunrise implies that the sun is literally rising and circling the Earth. — Maw

Well stated Maw.

The point is that people are unequal. Some people are better at certain things than others. This applies to legislature too.

I reject the Hobbesian view of human nature here - one that dovetails with Darwin's "survival of the fittest" logic that drives capitalism. To a degree, yes, people are unequal. But the more important point is: people are treated unequally. The idea that our society should be based on nature is an aristocracy: a totalitarian regime.

Some people have a better sense of what is good and what is bad than others

White men are in positions of power, and have been for hundreds of years. Following your logic, you are saying that white men have a "better sense of what is good and what is bad" than women and minorities. Two cheers for racism and sexism!

it isn't "expertise" so much as intelligence, thoughtfulness, insight, and interest. Most legislatures, for instance have staff that help legislators with certain technical details -- like form, for instance, or if a law annuls prior legislation, how to link the new and the old laws in the record. The State employs many people with extensive expertise who can be called upon. For instance, the legislators don't go out and look at bridges to decide whether they are deficient, or test pesticides for carcinogenic properties. These important types of tasks are done by state employees who have high levels of expertise.

Yes, and that is part of the problem. If people actually read about and understood the democracy of Ancient Greece, they would not be claiming that America was a democracy at all. — Zoneofnonbeing

And if they "read about and understood the democracy of Ancient Greece", knowing that it excluded women and kept slaves (among other invariably anti-democratic things), they would hardly call Ancient Greece democratic either. Democracy in America was hardly "democratic" in 1869. It was hardly "democratic" in 1919. Democracy has undeniably expanded since the early 20th century, and while it's status remains precarious at times, equating it with "the antonym of democracy", in your words, an "oligarchy" ostensibly places it, at minimum, within the same political sphere as Putin's Russian, or Xi Jinping's China, which is absurd. Yes wealth and income inequality is rising, yes gerrymandering threatens equal voting power, etc. etc., but to claim that America is an oligarchy, an "anti-democracy" is an exercise of mere ignorant hyperbole. You do not get to "toss around terms" either.

There are three white men who possess more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population - but America is not an oligarchy, right?

Only 5-6 corporations control 90% of the information we get to hear - but America is not an oligarchy, right?

When we look at the last 50 years in American politics, the most powerful offices in the land (president, vice president, attorney general, governor, senator, secretary of state) have been disproportionately held by members of just three families: Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton - but America is not aristocratic and oligarchic, right?

Reminder: the definition of oligarchy is a system whereby a few people are in power. Claiming that America is not an oligarchy is a demonstration of willful ignorance. American democracy is not "precarious" - its non-existent.

The point is that people are unequal. Some people are better at certain things than others. This applies to legislature too. Some people have a better sense of what is good and what is bad than others. — Magnus Anderson

People are unequal, no doubt about that: pick a trait, any trait, and you will find that it is dispersed across a mostly normal distribution, with most people in the middle, smaller numbers above average, and smaller numbers below average.

The reason for randomly selecting people to serve is to eliminate the "preselection" by the political system, which is pretty good at selecting people who are quite devoted to the interests of the ruling class. (This isn't peculiar to either parties -- its endemic to both of them.)

Some of the people picked randomly will turn out to be loyal servants to the ruling class, but most of them probably won't be.

By the way, I don't consider random selection any sort of real solution. The real solution requires either a revolution in which capitalism is thrown out, or the solution would be a very stringent reform of regulation and taxation beyond the progressive reforms of the 'trust busters' and Theodore Roosevelt.

IF the US is going to deal with all the many extremely serious problems that confront us -- from soil loss and pollution from agricultural runoff, (including the huge and growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico), growing carbon and methane emissions, forest depletion (much of it from insect damage, then fire), to growing resistance of a shrinking list of effective antibiotics and grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth (solvable by expropriating the expropriators), and so on, THEN the government will have to get tough with rich vested interests. It won't be pretty, but it really has to be done.

There are three white men who possess more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population — Zoneofnonbeing

That would be Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffet. The 9 richest people in the US are:

LARRY PAGE: $44.6 BILLION... Source of wealth: Google
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: $46.8 BILLION... Source of wealth: Bloomberg LP - business data
DAVID KOCH: $48.5 BILLION... Source of wealth: Diversified (oil)
CHARLES KOCH: $48.5 BILLION... Source of wealth: Diversified (oil)
LARRY ELLISON: $59 BILLION... Source of wealth: Software (like Oracle DB)
MARK ZUCKERBERG: $71 BILLION... Source of wealth: Facebook
WARREN BUFFETT: $78 BILLION... Source of wealth: Berkshire Hathaway (which owns many firms)
JEFF BEZOS: $81.5 BILLION... Source of wealth: Amazon
BILL GATES: $89 BILLION... Source of wealth: Microsoft

That's $566.9 billion. 9 people.

With a combined worth of $2.34 trillion, the Forbes 400 own more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people. The median American family has a net worth of $81,000.Dec 1, 2015.

There are three white men who possess more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population - but America is not an oligarchy, right? — Zoneofnonbeing

I mentioned wealth inequality in my previous post. This type of inequality is certainly deleterious to democracy, but that by itself does not transform America into an oligarchic state. Again, that is a mere toss of terms.

Only 5-6 corporations control 90% of the information we get to hear - but America is not an oligarchy, right?

Assuming this stat is correct (which I find extremely doubtful given the rise of internet news sources, regardless of their reliability), yes, monopolized dissemination of information is certainly detrimental to democracy. I'm not contesting that. However, these large multinational corporations do not entail an intellectually homogenized workforce all aiming for the same message. And this fact alone hardly makes America an oligarchy comparative to say Russia, or China, which you conveniently fail to mention.

When we look at the last 50 years in American politics, the most powerful offices in the land (president, vice president, attorney general, governor, senator, secretary of state) have been disproportionately held by members of just three families: Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton - but America is not aristocratic and oligarchic, right?

So? Most of those individuals were qualified to run and hold elected positions, and to my point, some of them were elected, and some were not. How is that oligarchic?

Reminder: the definition of oligarchy is a system whereby a few people are in power. Claiming that America is not an oligarchy is a demonstration of willful ignorance. American democracy is not "precarious" - its non-existent.

No. At most the above suggest that America is a flawed democracy. Which is certainly is. But to claim that America is oligarchic is nonsense. We are using an abstract political concept with a single definition: that there are few people are in power. This is vague and unhelpful and can arguably be applied to a range of countries. You must provide other examples of oligarchic countries with which we can compare the USA and see where, if any, parallels exist. Is England an oligarchy? Is Canada an oligarchy? Is Australia? Are we closer to Russia. China? Saudi Arabia?

it isn't "expertise" so much as intelligence, thoughtfulness, insight, and interest. — Bitter Crank

In other words, it is expertise.

People are unequal, no doubt about that: pick a trait, any trait, and you will find that it is dispersed across a mostly normal distribution, with most people in the middle, smaller numbers above average, and smaller numbers below average. — Bitter Crank

That's why you should use your intelligence to pick the best candidate for the job instead of throwing a dice to pick any. Also, once you pick the best person for the job, you don't want to remove him from the position, unless it turns out he's not really that good.

The reason for randomly selecting people to serve is to eliminate the "preselection" by the political system, which is pretty good at selecting people who are quite devoted to the interests of the ruling class. (This isn't peculiar to either parties -- its endemic to both of them.) — Bitter Crank

It is important for the government not to serve any kind of interest in the same way that it is important for parents not to give into the whims of their children. I hope we can agree on this one.

I reject the Hobbesian view of human nature here - one that dovetails with Darwin's "survival of the fittest" logic that drives capitalism. To a degree, yes, people are unequal. But the more important point is: people are treated unequally. The idea that our society should be based on nature is an aristocracy: a totalitarian regime. — Zoneofnonbeing

If people are unequal it is only fair to treat them unequally. If someone is wrong, you don't want to treat them in the same way that you treat someone who is right. That's not fair. If someone is wrong, you want to discourage, and not encourage, their mistaken actions.

White men are in positions of power, and have been for hundreds of years. Following your logic, you are saying that white men have a "better sense of what is good and what is bad" than women and minorities. Two cheers for racism and sexism! — Zoneofnonbeing

That's not what I said. But then, it's not something I wouldn't say. White men do appear to have better judgment than women and minorities. That's reality. You can shame it all you want with your "racism" and "sexism" accusations but it won't change the fact that it is reality.

This type of inequality is certainly deleterious to democracy, but that by itself does not transform America into an oligarchic state

The point you are overlooking is this: democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Democracy is a system where the people are in power. Capitalism is a system where a few elites are in power. The terms are antonyms; but people insist on calling America a "democracy" because there is a "free market" - as if the two can co-exist. The existence of a market forecloses on the possibility of there being any democracy.

Where the people are in power politically, they must also be in power economically. The economic system where the people are in power is socialism/communism. Where a few elites are in power politically, they must also be in power economically. The economic system where a few elites are in power is slavery/feudalism/capitalism/fascism and other totalitarian regimes.

And I admit: Ancient Greece was not communist. Therefore, following my logic to its conclusion, even Ancient Greece was not democratic. But the point here is this: ancient Greece was democratic for having sortition, but not democratic for having a class-based society. That is one structural error. The United States is not democratic because it lacks sortition and it is a class-based society. That is two structural errors.

So? Most of those individuals were qualified to run and hold elected positions, and to my point, some of them were elected, and some were not. How is that oligarchic?

This line of reasoning takes for granted what it means to be "qualified." In the current moment, being "qualified" means having attended a prestigious institution, having connections to Washington insiders, and having the blessings of the corporations which already wield power and control over the people. Before a politician is elected, they are selected by those who are already in power. Just look at the recent statements of Donna Brazille that the DNC was thoroughly rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. The reason a lot of people said Hillary Clinton was "qualified" to be president was because she was already secretary of state. In other words, she had experience bombing black and brown nations - and that made her a "qualified expert". Never do people stop to consider the option of simply not bombing anyone! Because "qualified" often means that one is already part of the military industrial complex, and has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice large groups of people at any time.

You must provide other examples of oligarchic countries with which we can compare the USA and see where, if any, parallels exist.

This is not necessary at all. We need not discuss other countries to arrive at the conclusion that the U.S. is not a democracy. Just because the U.S. is more democratic than a lot of countries does not make it a democracy. It simply means that - on a rough scale of 1 to 10, where "1" is not a democracy at all, and "10" is an absolute democracy, the U.S. might score a "2" whereas the other countries might score a "1". There is a difference between what the country claims to be and what they are. The U.S. claims to be a democracy, and feeds us all types of fancy propaganda for this fantasy, but it is totalitarian in action. Democracy is the dream of America, but totalitarianism is the nightmare of real life. We must judge a nation based on what it does, not what it has the potential to do, and not what it claims to be doing.

We can judge a system based on its actions in isolation when measured against our standard for democracy (which, to me, means sortition + communist economy) - as opposed to whether it is 'better' than another nation. What is your definition of democracy? And why do you think the U.S. embodies a democracy? Can we imagine a world where the ordinary citizen has a legitimate chance to serve in government? If not, why not? Doesn't the rejection of this idea further entrench notions of hierarchy?

White men do appear to have better judgment than women and other races. That's reality. You can shame it all you want but it won't change the fact that it is reality.

-@Magnus Anderson

...this conversation is over.

Dogmatists do not even start a conversation ;)

Democracy is a system where the people are in power. — Zoneofnonbeing

More accurately, democracy is a system where the rabble is in power.