1. Based on the arguments from Readings 6.1 and 6.2, it is safe to conclude that the wealthy capitalist class had its interests embedded in the Constitution, while the poor working class, its interests, and values, were excluded from the conversation. To put it into a perspective: “By 1760, fewer than five hundred men in five colonial cities controlled most of the commerce, shipping, banking, mining, and manufacturing on the eastern seaboard” is followed by “South Carolina state senators had to possess estates worth at least £7,000 clear of debt (equivalent to over a million dollars today)” and “Ordinary working people could not take off four months to go to Philadelphia and write a constitution.”
  2. Wealth inequality and consequent imbalance of representation are obvious indicators of the fact that the social class structure of the United States has not changed since its inception – the makers of the Constitution, having their best interest at heart, did a terrific job at securing their prosperity, well-being, and class rule for years ahead. Whether we look outside or look into what was happening 250 years ago, we see the same pattern of M-C-M` that is used only by one class, the capitalist one while the working class is underpaid, overworked and miserable.
  3. The idea of democracy, as in rule by the common people, would entail a proper redistribution of land which would jeopardize the capitalist class’ privilege and their ability to wield socio-economic power. Unpredictable reactions that would follow the installment of democracy made no sense to the wealthy capitalists – why bet on something dangerous that would bring you down if you could, by creating a government, make sure that your dominant position in the society would never be compromised?

One thought on “Nikita Vasilyev – D.B. 6.1

  1. 1. Poor and working class people were excluded from the legislative decisions on wealth distributions and the like, of course. Why would the wealthy want want poor working class people having a say in discussions about wealth distribution and income tax? Good references at the end, too.

    2. I it isn’t broke don’t fix it, right? I believe it is the same with possibly some minor adjustments to make the system not look completely rigged in favor of the wealthy.

    3. The main objective for maintaining wealth is retaining a dominant position in the socioeconomic realm to create more wealth. If you have a say so in how to power is distributed, you would want it to work in your favor. All good points.

Leave a Reply