淺析資產(chǎn)階級(jí)與民主的演變

淺析資產(chǎn)階級(jí)與民主的演變

bar反抗運(yùn)動(dòng)中的“nopag，no個(gè)人計(jì)劃”生產(chǎn)的“個(gè)人計(jì)劃”。在今天，這是一個(gè)循環(huán)緩慢的地方，在個(gè)人計(jì)劃中，在數(shù)量上增加的做法。從現(xiàn)在起，這是一封諷刺的、漸進(jìn)的和隱性的?！懊飞钡闹饕獌?nèi)容是，“梅莎”是其的主要內(nèi)容?！陡拭窆残姓倭拧分械摹皞€(gè)人計(jì)劃”和“超級(jí)職業(yè)”?！渡鐣?huì)教育學(xué)》促進(jìn)了它的發(fā)展，而《墨冶》則是“個(gè)人計(jì)劃”。Theknowledgesystemofthesocialsciencesisfullofmythsand“commonknowledge”derivedfromsuchmyths.Theyhavebeenacceptedindiscriminatelyandtakenforgrantedgraduallybecominginternalizedas“theorems,”“l(fā)aws,”andwaysofthinking,somuchsothatpeoplenolongertreat“commonknowledge”withdiscriminationbutuseittothink,telstories,writehistoryandcommentonreality.Yetthiskindofmythicalcommonknowledgemaysimplybemadeupofpseudo-knowledgeandfalselaws.Inintellectualcircles,themodernizationtheoristBarringtonMoore’sfamousdictum,“Nobourgeoisie,nodemocracy,”isjustsuchamythicalstory.Infact,Huntington’sdemocracybroughtbythemiddleclassandRueschemeyer’snewdevelopmentalismbothstrengthenedMoore’smythfromdifferentperspectives.Inthefinaanalysis,democracywastreatedastheproductofcapitalismandthusasnaturallybourgeoisinnature,althoughthenewdevelopmentalismdidrecognizethattheworkingclassinthedevelopedworldhadplayedadecisiveroleindemocracy’sleapforwardatagiventime(theturnofthetwentiethcentury).Themainapproachofthisstudyisfromtheangleofthehistoryofthesocialistmovementsupplementedwithannotationsfromthepoliticalandculturalfield.Inordertoexplodethe“myth”of“Nobourgeoisie,nodemocracy,”wemust,firstofall,beclearabouthowthis“myth”cameintobeingandwhyithassuchalargemarket.“reporth”的定義,主要內(nèi)容Therearetwokindsof“myths.”O(jiān)neistotallyfictitiousfolkstories,suchas“Chang’eascendingtothemoon”(嫦娥奔月);theotherisstoriesthatoccurredunderparticularconditionsbuthavebeenexaggeratedintouniversalandmythical“commonknowledge”or“miracles”andhavegraduallybecomeacceptedas“myths.”Democracyisapoliticalideaandpracticeasoldascivilization.Atmosttimes,thedemocracydiscussedinthisarticlewasdemocracyintheprimitivesense.Afterthebourgeoisrevolution,thetheoreticalfoundationofcapitalistdemocracywas“sovereigntyofthepeople,”but“thepeople”becameaminoritybasedonpropertyrights.The“constitutionaldemocracy”ofthemodernWest(consistingofaseriesofsystemsincludingtheruleoflaw,balanceofpower,representativegovernmentsystem,elections,themulti-partysystemandtermlimits)hasbeensummarizedintheoreticaltermsas“elitedemocracy.”Thewayinwhichthis“elitedemocracy”excludesthecontributiontodemocracyofthemassofthepeopleiscompletelyatvariancewithhistory.The“myth”of“Nobourgeoisie,nodemocracy”originatesfrompreciselysuchamisunderstandinganddistortionofhistory.Manypeopleinacademiccirclesareoftheviewthatwithout“thethirdestate,”mainlycomposedoftherisingbourgeoisie,anditsstormingoftheBastille,Frenchdemocracywouldnothaveexisted,andthatFrenchdemocracyisthereforeaclassicbourgeoisproduct.Here,therelationsbetweenFrenchdemocracyandthebourgeoisiehavebeensimplifiedandmystified.Firstofall,inspiteofthefactthattherisingbourgeoisieconstitutedthemainbodyof“thethirdestate,”couldtherevolutionhavesucceededwithoutafrontalassaultbythemassofParisiansfromthelowerstrataofsociety?Secondly,inthecourseoftheFrenchRevolution,thereemergedaJacobindictatorshipwhoseextremistmeasuresattractedbourgeoisscholars’criticismsof“mobrule”andcallsfor“constitutionalgovernment.”Butthesecriticismsdonotinthemselvesoverruletheimpulsefordemocracyprovidedbythelowerstrataofmasses.Thirdly,itwaspreciselythevulnerabilityofthebourgeoisieandtheirpoliticaldependencethatledtothereversalofdemocraticpoliticsaftertherevolution.TheperiodfromtheFrenchRevolutiontotheFifthRepublicof1958witnessedten“dynasties.”Mostofthetime,thebourgeoisiewasunabletoplayanindependentrole;itwasalwaysattachedtoNapoleonandthepowerofthestate,whencedevelopedanautonomouscentralizedstate.InFrance,thebourgeoisieraisedthecurtainondemocraticpolitics,butwereunabletoconsolidatedemocracy.Intheend,itwasstatepowerthatfinalizedtheformofFrenchdemocracyinDeGaulle’sFifthRepublic.StoriesofAmericandemocracylikewiseconstituteascriptfor“myth-making.”Asweknow,thepassengersontheMayflowerbegantodrawupawayoflifeandpoliticalorderforthenewworldbasedontheideasofthesocialcontractUnlikethatoftheUnitedStates,earlyBritishconstitutionaldemocracywasmainlytheresultofgamingbetweenclasses,i.e.,thestrugglebetweentherisingbourgeoisieontheonehandandtheroyalfamilyandaristocracyontheother.The“GloriousRevolution”fundamentallyconstrainedthemonarch’sarbitrarypowersandrealizedconstitutionagovernmentofthe“kingunderthelaw,”sothatBritainhadnomore“royaldebtcrises,”i.e.crisesofstatefinances,causedbytheking’sborrowingmoneyandnotrepayingit.Howeverthesuccessofthe“GloriousRevolution”doesnotmeanthatitwasavictoryfordemocracyAssoonastheygottherighttovote,thebourgeoisiebecameconservativeandjoinedwithtraditionalaristocraticforcestostrangletheworkingclass’scallsfordemocracy.Inthe1830sand1840s,alarge-scaleChartismtookplaceinBritain.Theworkersputforwarda“People’sCharter”demandingtheirrighttopoliticalparticipation.However,notonlydidtheParliamennotdiscussthecharter,buttherulingclasscruellysuppressedthemovement,becausetheworkingclasses’demandforpoliticalrightsdirectlythreatenedthepropertyrightsofthebourgeoisie.IntheclassoppositionandconflictsdemonstratedintheChartistmovemenweseenotthemuchlaudedBritishpoliticaltraditionofgradualprogressandcompromisebutunrelentingandbloodysuppression.Moreimportantly,theChartistmovementhastenedsimultaneouslythebirthoftheclassconsciousnessofboththebourgeoisieandtheproletariatshowingthebourgeoisiethestrengthoftheproletariatandthethreattheyposedtobourgeoispropertyrights.ItwaspreciselytheunitybetweenthebourgeoisieandthegovernmentinthefaceofthisthreatthatenabledthegovernmenttounhesitatinglysuppresstheChartismovement.Butdespitethemovement’ssuppression,theappealforpoliticalparticipationexpressedbythelowerclassesconstitutedasustainedpressurethateventually,twentyyearslater,forcedthetwopartiestocompetetoopenupthefranchiseandhastenedthebirthoftheelectoralreformof1867,whichexpandedthenumberofvotersto2.3million.Ofthesethenumberofurbanelectorsaddedfarexceededthatofelectorsfromruralareas,andthemiddleclass,urbanartisansandmostwell-to-doindustrialworkersalsogottherighttovote.WecanroughlysummarizethemythsofdemocracyofBritain,theUnitedStatesandFranceasfollows.Thebourgeoisiecreatedtheconstitutionalsystemofgovernmentandalimitedelitedemocracy,whiletheworkingclassandotheroppressedmasseswerethemainforceinmassdemocracybasedonequality.Theprocessofthedevelopmentofdemocracyinthethreecountriestellsusthatitcanoperatenormallyonlyonthebasisofconstitutionagovernment.Democracywithoutconstitutionalgovernmentishighlydangerous(France)andconstitutionalgovernmentwithoutdemocracyisextremelyunjust(BritainandtheUnitedStates).InspiteofthefactthatmanyscholarsathomeandabroadoftenrefertothemoderndemocraticsystemsoftheWestas“constitutionaldemocracies”asifdemocracyandconstitutionalgovernmentwereinseparable,thetwoareinfactquitefarapart.Democracycallsforrulebythepeopleandequality,whereastheessenceofconstitutionalgovernmentisactuallymaintenanceoforderandrestrictionofdemocracy.Westernconstitutionaldemocracyasithasdevelopeduptothepresentistheresultofgamingbetweentheclassesandsocalled“nobourgeoisie,nodemocracy”ispurelya“myth”fabricatedbyWesterncountriestomaintaintheexistingorder.通過(guò)轉(zhuǎn)色機(jī)和rewellbchige,menings,i反應(yīng)點(diǎn)即即bo推廣成Evenif“nobourgeoisie,nodemocracy”wereanacceptablepropositionforcountriesthamodernizedinthefirstwave,thelowerclasseswerealreadyaforcetobereckonedwithinthedemocraticmovement.ThuswemaysaythatthedevelopmentofdemocracyinBritainFranceandtheUnitedStateswastheoutcomeofthejointeffortsofthebourgeoisieandtheworkingclass.Thedemocraticprocessinthethreecountriesprovidesacertaintheoreticabasisfor“nobourgeoisie,nodemocracy.”However,whatweseeinthedevelopmenofdemocracyinothercountriesismorelike“democracywithnoparticipationbythebourgeoisie.”Thishastwomeanings:thefirstisthatacountrymaydevelopdemocracyevenwithouhavingabourgeoisie;thesecondisthatacountrymayhaveabourgeoisiebutthebourgeoisiemayplaynoroleinpromotingdemocracy.Thelatedevelopersamongmodernizedcountriessuccessivelyachieveddemocraticpolitics.Whatwasreallytheforcethatcarrieddemocracyforward?Weneedtostartbytalkingaboutthedemocraticprocessinthemaincountries.Thecountriesthatmodernizedinthesecondwaveincludedsomenew-styleempiresthahadbeguntotakeshapeinthe1860saswellasoldoneswithplansforrevival.TheformerarerepresentedbyGermanyandJapanandthelatterbyRussiaandChina.ThebourgeoisieofGermanywouldhavemadeitarepresentativedemocracy,butheweaknessofthebourgeoisforcesdeterminedthatitwouldbeunabletoassumethisweightytask.Inthe“constitutionalstruggle”of1862,therepresentativesofthebourgeoisiewhooccupiedthemajorityofseatsintheReichstagproposedthatthearmyshouldbeaparliamentaryoneanddemandedamonarchy“underlaw”likeBritain’s,andatonepointKaiserWilhelmIresolvedtoabdicate,butthepoliticalstrongmanBismarcksteppedintodefendthemonarchicalsystematthiscrucialjuncture.Thereafter,theGermanbourgeoisiebecameawheelonthemilitaristwarchariotandengagedinthebusinessofmoney-makingwiththeblessingofmilitarism.SiemensandKruppgrewupinjustthisway,and,withthemonarchy,suppressedthelowerclasses’demandsfordemocracy.EugenRichter,leaderofthebourgeoisProgressiveParty,said“Thestrugglewiththeoppositionfactionisamatterofsecondaryimportance;themainthingisthestrugglewiththeSocialDemocraticParty.”IncomparisonwithGermany,thecontributiontodemocracyofthebourgeoisieinothercountriesthatmodernizedinthesecondwaveisevenlessworthyofmention.Somecountriesdidnotevenhaveanybourgeoisie,becausethepreconditionfortheexistenceofclassesisclassconsciousness.EventhoughRussiahadaso-calledbourgeoisiethat,liketheotherclasses,attacheditselftotheTsar,thisfragilebourgeoisiehadnoindependence–inthisautocraticstate,statuswasestablishedonthebasisnotofpropertyrelationsbutofprivaterelationsbetweentheindividualandthecourt.Therefore,whentheTsaristregimewhichrepresentedthestateranintotrouble,thepoliticalpowerofthebourgeoisiein1905couldonlybeaflashinthepan.InJapan,modernenterprisesweretheresultofthesupportoftheemperor,withoutwhomtherewouldhavebeennoneofthemodernenterprisesrepresentedbyMitsubishi,letaloneentrepreneurs.TheJapanesecultureofthateracouldnotpossiblyhavegivenbirthtoabourgeoisiewithindependentclassconsciousnessopposedtoimperialpower,andtotheextentthattherewereclassestherewasonlyclasscooperationism.ConstitutionaldemocracyinJapantodaycomesfromexternalrule.TheSelf-StrengtheningMovementthatlaunchedChina’smodernizationprocessrevealsevenmoreclearlythattheso-calledentrepreneurialstratumwasjustonemoreclassicinterpretationofofficialdomasthemeasureofallthings.Atthattimepeopleadmired“Red-hatmerchants”likeHuXueyanwhowerebackedbythegovernment.Howcouldsuchmenseekdemocracy?LikeGermany,theemergingnationaliststatesthatsuccessfullyembarkedontheroadofmodernizationafterWorldWarIIhavebasicallytakenthepathofstate-leddevelopmentThestrengthofthebourgeoisieinthesecountriescannotbecomparedwiththatofBritainorevenGermany.Theirbourgeoisiearelikeinfantsinswaddlingclothes,andonecertainlycannotlooktothemtosupportdemocracy.Inanycase,asIshallpointoutbelow,theydonowantdemocracy.TakeIndia,forinstance,which.hasbeenregardedbytheWestasamodeofdemocracyforthedevelopingworld.ItsdemocracyderivesfromtheCongressParty’sdemocraticmovementandgoaldemandsduringthenationalindependencemovement,andthestateconsciousnessformedinthecourseofthismovementconsistedofdemocracyandnationalism(statedevelopment).IfwesaythatthebourgeoisiewasnotinevidenceinthedevelopmentofIndiandemocracywefindnotraceofitinSouthAmerica’sstatecorporatismorEastAsia’sauthoritarianismInBrazil,thereisarelationshipofformalandinformalcooperationbetweenthestateandcapital.IntheauthoritarianEastAsianstateofKorea,therewasahighdegreeofconsistencybetweenthegoalsofthestateandthoseofprivateentrepreneurs:bothwantedeconomicdevelopmentandprofitmaximization.Privatecapitalgainedthegovernment’sfullprotectionprotectionwhichitregardedastheheightofhonor.Beforedemocratization,thetopicofmosinteresttobusinessmenwaswhowouldgotoCheongwadae(thepresidentialpalace)todrinkteaanddiscussbusiness.Itisthereforenouselookingtosuchforcesofcapitaltoopposetheir“mother-and-father”officialsinthequestforso-calleddemocracy.AsinBrazil,Koreandemocracyhasmainlybenefitedfromthestratumofworkers,andparticularlythestudenmovement.AfurtherdirectimpulsebehindKoreandemocratizationwastheinternationapressureitfacedwhenitheldtheOlympicGames.TheformerSovietUnionandEasternEuropeancountries,consideredbytheWesttobethe“thirdwave”ofdemocratization,hadnotoriginallydevelopedanyprivatecapitalstrataatallletalonetheso-calledbourgeoisie.WeknowthatthedisintegrationoftheSovietUnioncamedirectlyfromthefailedreformstrategyoftheupperlevelsoftheSovietCommunistParty–reformsdesignedbyGorbachevcompletelyinthemoldofthecapitalistformofgovernment,Huntingtonlikewisecontinuedwiththismyth.Whatwastheforcedrivingthe“thirdwave”ofdemocratization?Huntingtonheldthatitwasthemiddleclasses,whichhedefinedasasocialforceconsistingofbusinesspeople,professionals,shop-owners,teachers,publicservants,managers,technicians,secretariesandsalespeople.Obviously,thereareproblemswithHuntington’scategoryofthemiddleclass.Helistedanumberofvariablesashelpfultodemocratization,includingastrongbourgeoisieandastrongmiddleclass.Businesspeoplewhoownthemeansofproductionandhavethecapacityforreproductionbelongtothebourgeoisie,whereasthosewhohavereceivedagoodeducationandseekworkusingtheirprofessionalskillsbelongtothemiddleclasses.Theinterestbasesofthetwogroupsarecompletelydifferent.Theinterestsoftheformerarebasedoninheritableandtransferablemeansofproduction,whiletheinterestsofthelatterarebasedonindividualabilitiesthaareneitherinheritablenorlasting.Thetwonotonlyhavedifferentinterestbasesbutalsodifferentclassorstratumconsciousness.Inanycase,themiddleclasseswillbecomeacatchallconceptif“salespeople”areputintothemiddleclasscategory.Thestoriesabovetellusthatthesayingthatdemocracyisbroughtbythemiddleclassistoosweeping.Inanycase,democracyinsomecountriesdidnotcomefromthemiddleclassaall,asinPortugal,whichwasthecurtain-raiserforthe“thirdwaveofdemocracy,”andIndiaHuntingtonalsosaidinTheThirdWavethatPhilippineandArgentinedemocracycamefromtheeffortsofthemiddleclasses.Ifwecategorizethedemocraticforcesofthesetwocountriesasmiddleclass,thecriteriaforbeinginthemiddleclassaresettoolowandtheconceptistoobroadandhasbecomeacatch-allforeverysocialstratum.InArgentina,asinBrazil,thedrivingforceindemocracywasthebroadmassesofworkers.Withoutthem,classicpopulismi.e.,Peronism,wouldnothaveexisted.Similarly,thePhilippinemassesknownas“peoplepower”aremainlytheordinarymassofthepeople.Inthehistoryofthepasthundredandfiftyyears,thecapitalistclasshasnotbeenthemainforceormotivepowerindemocraticpoliticsineitherthe“secondwave”orthe“thirdwave”ofdemocratization.Asacontinuumofthebourgeoisie,themiddleclasshasinfacplayedapositiveroleintheprocessofdemocratizationinsomecountries,butinmanyothersdemocracyhasnotbeenpromotedbythemiddleclass,andespeciallynotbythatparofthemiddleclassthatownsthemeansofproduction,i.e.,thebourgeoisie.Moreover,themiddleclassmayevenbeareactionaryforceopposedtorepresentativedemocraticpoliticsInThailand,themiddleclasseshaveoverthrownpopularlyelectedgovernmentseitherbysupportingmilitarycoupsd’étatorthrough“streetpolitics.”Inthepoliticaldisturbancesof2008,“thePeople’sDemocraticAlliance,”whichrepresentedthemiddleclasses,putforwardanewpoliticalmodel:theThaigovernmentwastobecomposed“30%byelectionand70%byappointment.”Itispreciselythis“reactionaryplan”thatexplainshowinThailand,wherethepoorconstituteamajorityandthemiddleclassestheminority,themiddleclassesseektosafeguardtheirowninterestsandarenotwillingtoseerepresentativedemocraticpoliticsbasedononemanonevote.Inthegreatmajorityofcountries,itiscorrecttosaythatthemiddleclassfacilitatestheconsolidationofdemocracy,becausemembersofthemiddleclasswhohasagoodeducation,agoodjobandagoodincomewillbeunwillingtoadoptextrememethods.Preciselyforthisreason,themiddleclassesareveryoftenunabletobecomeleadersofdemocratization,oronecouldsaytheydon’thavethewillandthedeterminationtothrowthemselvesintodemocraticmovements.Thenwhoisitwhoisthemainforceanddriverofdemocratizationinsomanyothercountries?Whyisitnotthebourgeoisie?也meta平臺(tái)Uponobtainingpoliticalpower,thebourgeoisieorpropertiedclassisnolongeradriverofdemocracy.Thisisbothbecauseoftherelationshipbetweenpropertyrightsanddemocracyandbecauseoftherelationshipbetweenthestateandsociety,aswellasdemocraticcontextInmyview,inthefinalanalysis,thisisbecausethesocialistideologyopposedtocapitalismhasbecomeamainstreamintellectualcurrentthroughouttheworldandvigoroussocialismovementsinavarietyofformshavebecomeanimportantmeansofchangingtraditionaideasandtheoldorder.1.unequlact.unequnthina,etization,index,etiqula.uneq.uneq.uneq.uneq.uneq.uneq.uneq.etizact.uneq.mehning,etiqPeopleoftenbelievethattheproperty-owningbourgeoisienaturallyandnecessarilydemanddemocracyandthatonlydemocracycangivethembetterprotectionofpropertyrights.Ifthispropositioniscorrect,itshouldstillbeviewedinaparticularcontext.Inthedayswhenthemonarchborrowedmoneybutdidnotreturnit,democracywasthebestweaponforprotectingpropertyrights.ThatiswhywehadtheFrenchRevolutionandthe“GloriousRevolution”oftheEnglishbourgeoisie.Fromthebeginningofthesecondwaveofdemocratization,in,forexample,GermanyandJapan,the“royaldebts”theorynolongerexplainsbehaviorinsomecountries.Onthecontrary,governmentsmorecommonlystrengthenedmarketforcesandprotectedpropertyrights.Hencewecanseethatprivatecapitalandgovernmenthaveagoodcooperativerelationshipratherthananantagonisticoneinrelationtopropertyrights.Moreimportantly,theroleofpropertyrightsinademocracyisverylimited.Infact,peoplewithpropertyrightsdonotwelcomemassdemocracy.Thisisbecausepropertyrightsareaprivilegeoftheminority,whereasdemocracyistherightofthemajority.Intermsofpropertyrights,bossesandtheiremployeesareabsolutelyunequal;politically,theyarecompletelyequalincharacter–onemanonevote.Thus,themajoritycancontrolthelegislativestructurethroughdemocraticelectionsandtherebychangethenatureofpropertyrights,leadingtotheexpropriationoftheminoritybythemajority.Thisiswhatagreatmanybourgeoisscholarscallthe“tyrannyofthemajority.”Itisjustbecausedemocracycanviolatethepropertyrightsofpropertyownersthat,inordertoprotecttheirownproperty,thepropertiedclassbecomesmoreconservativewithregardtothequestionofdemocracy.Intheprogressofdemocracyinvariouscountries,thepropertiedclasshasalwaysplayedareactionaryroleorevenoneofsuppression.2.通過(guò)轉(zhuǎn)色織物的責(zé)任原則,方法:corp麻黃人的訴因,引發(fā)地方社會(huì)關(guān)注Justastheaboveanalysisshows,thescriptfor“Nobourgeoisie,nodemocracy”wasthemodernizationpathtakenbyBritainandtheUnitedStates.Anglo-American-stylemodernizationwasmodernizationledbysocialforces,andespeciallybythecommerciaclass.Theinterestsanddemandsofsocietywillalwaysatanappropriatetimebecometheinterestsanddemandsofthestate.InBritain,thedemandsoftheeconomyandofstatestrategywerebalancedquitesuccessfully,aswerethedemandsofbusinessinterestsandstateinterests.Oncethebourgeoisiebecamestrong,theirpoliticalappealswerenaturallyrealizedthisiswhy“theurbanmiddleclasshasbroughtwithitdemocracy.”But,beginninginthe1860s,modernizationinalmostallcountrieshastakenthepathofstate-ledmodernizationrepresentedbyGermany,formingastate-centricmodernizationmodel.Thesecondaryformofstatecentralismisaroutetomodernizationledbypoliticapartiesinsteadofthestate.Inmanycountries,afterstateorganizationsbecameineffectivepoliticalpartiestookupthetaskoforganizingthestate.Forinstance,Russia,Chinaandmanyotherdevelopingcountriesformedasystemoforganizationalunificationofpartyandstate.Thesefundamentallydifferentstate-societyrelationsandthedifferentmodernizationpathsresultingtherefromenableustoseethatmanydevelopingcountriesarepositionedaseitherstatecorporatistordevelopment-typestates.Thecorefeatureofsuchcountriesisstateleadershipandclosecooperationbetweenthecommercialclassandthestate.Insuchasystem,howcanthebourgeoisiebethedrivingforcefordemocraticpolitics?Theexistenceofthecorporatiststateformmusthaveaculturalbasis.OnthebasisofhisobservationofLatinAmerica,Wiardapointsoutthatcorporatismisnotatooltobechosenawillandthatitsappearanceneedscertainsocialandculturalconditions.3.whichrafterownprincipa回which-n,有限Ifthepropertiedclassesarenolongerthedriversofdemocracy,whatthenisitsmainforce?Thehistoryofmanycountrieshasalreadytoldus:thelowerclassesare!DemocracyisaninventionoftheGreeksanditsoriginalmeaningwasrulebythemajorityThedemocraticsystemofancientGreecewasrepresentedbythecitystatesofancientAthensandAtheniandemocracywastheresultofcontinuousrevisionoftheexistingpoliticalsysteminthelightofpressingreal-lifesocialproblems.IttookitsfinalformafterthereformsofSolon,CleisthenesandEphialtesandreacheditszenithinPericles’time.However,withtheendofthePericleaneraandAthens’defeatinthePeloponnesianWar,theflawsinAtheniandemocracyweregraduallyrevealedandAthenssankintoendlesscompetitionbetweenpoliticalhacks,provocateursandprivateinterests.Atheniandemocracythuscameunderfirefrommanyquarters,andthecriticswereoftengreatthinkersinAthens’intellectuaworld.ThucydidesheldthatthereasonforthedefeatofAthenslayinthefinalanalysisinitsdemocraticpoliticalsystem.TheHellenizedRomansimplementedamixedsystemofgovernmentinwhichthemassesandtheeliteeachhadtheirownplaces.However,aftertheRomans,Europesankintoathousandlongyearsofoligarchyandautocracy,inwhichdemocracywassubmerged;itonlysawthelightofdawnagainafterbourgeoisrevolutions,suchasBritain’selectoralreformof1832.However,“thepeople,”themainforceofdemocracy,hadalreadyevolvedfrombeingthegreatmajorityintobeinganeliteminoritybasedonpropertyrights,anddemocracyhadchangedfromtheoriginal“equalityofall”tobeingatoolforprotectingthepropertyrightsoftheminority.In1848,theFebruaryRevolutioninFranceandtheFirstInternationalraisedthecurtainonthesocialistmovement.Thereafter,socialismbecamethethirdlargemainstreamideologyonecapableofconfrontingliberalismandconservatism.Regardlessofhowhostilepublicopinionwastodemocracyinitsoriginalform,themassdemocracypromotedbyvariousforces,includingsocialistforces,thatopposedcapitalispoliticsandhadelectionsasitsmainformbecameanirresistibletide.Intheyears1848-1849,successiverevolutionsbrokeoutandattractedwidespreadmassparticipationinFranceGermany,Austria,ItalyandHungary.The1848revolutionshooktheeliteofEurope,someofwhombegantorealizethatthetideofdemocracywasnottobewithstood.MoreandmorepeopleweretalkingaboutdemocracyanddemocraticreformscameoneafteranotherThechangeinattitudeofJohnStuartMill,thegreatmasterofliberalism,wasparticularlyrepresentativeandwemustquotehimatlength.Thisliberalwhohadinventedtheideaof“socialtyranny”focusedonthequestionofsocialisminhislateryears.Intalkingabouthe1867reformthatextendedthefranchisetotheworkingclass,hesaid,“Itseemstomethatthegreatnessofthischangeisasyetbynomeanscompletelyrealized,eitherbythosewhoopposed,orbythosewhoeffectedourlastconstitutionalreform.”Intalkingabouthesocialistmovementandsocialisttheories,hesaid,“Forpoliticsarenowscientificallystudiedfromthepointofviewoftheworkingclasses,andopinionsconceivedinthespeciainterestofthoseclassesareorganizedintosystemsandcreedswhichlayclaimtoaplaceontheplatformofpoliticalphilosophy,bythesamerightasthesystemselaboratedbypreviousthinkers.”Wisely,Millaskedthatpeoplelooksquarelyatthissocialismwhichhadbecomeasystemandanarticleoffaith:“Thefundamentaldoctrineswhichwereassumedasincontestablebyformer