1. The definition of faction, especially “number of citizens…united…by some common impulse or passion” reminds me of our ‘class’ concept – in both instances one part of the society is predisposed to have interests that are “adversed to the rights of other citizens”.
  2. According to Federalist #10, the “faculties of men” are the source of wealth – i.e., one’s intelligence, class position, inheritance and other predetermined qualities of a human being that define upward mobility and prescribe a certain life to an individual. In a very implicit way Federalist #10 prescribes belonging to a social class as a predominant factor in success: the idea was that those who were born poor shall remain poor, those who were born rich shall remain rich. The “insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interest”, was expected to inevitably follow from the assumption that the classes were fundamentally different in their worldview – clearly, only the superior faction was allowed to be in the position of decision-making, simply because they had more capital and did not care for the opinions of others.
  3. This explanation of wealth and poverty could have been suitable 250 years ago as well as now, but the problem with that explanation is that it does not take into account the problems of the working class. Apparently, there has been no way to overcome the “diversity of the faculties of men” and no wonder – the Constitution has taken care of the position of the affluent class and the position of the working class by protecting the faculties of the former.
  4. The core mission of the US government did not take me by surprise – whether I look at the country of my origin or the history of other colonial territories, such as Congo, I can see the exact same system in place. The capitalist class possesses the means of production as well as commodities, makes sure that the working class is governed, rather governmented, and profits from slave or surplus labor, depending on the conditions of history. Of course, the working class is not happy about this status quo and the media keeps pacifying the masses by portraying governments (ironically calling those structures as representatives of the people) that are at odds with big corporations or, for that matter, with other governments while the hierarchy of classes is the same as 250 years ago without a chance for change. On the subject of “society” that presents us with a different framework, I would like to refer to Chomsky who argued that the so-called political “experts” or “critics” are connected to the government and, by definition, unable to produce a critical viewpoint  – all we have is incessant lip-service tautology.
  5. Lacking theoretical background, I was somewhat amazed that the American Democracy does not stand a simple background check, but the fact that the capitalist class perceives the working class as inferior and unworthy is not new – as we know, class affiliation predetermines one’s behavior towards another class. Whether one is a capitalist or a worker, the “Us or Them” philosophy has not changed – the capitalists resent “the rule by the common people” which could strip them from their privileges, while the workers detest capitalists for their abuse of surplus labor and restrictions that could lead to a transformation of a society. 

Leave a Reply