What concept that we have already discussed does “faction” remind you of?
The concept of faction reminds me of the prior definition of classes. In Federalist Paper #10 its stated : “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”(Madison, 1). Thereafter, faction is basically this group of society that has any other interest different to the ones of the owning class. Hence, just like in Marx differentiates between the owning class and the employees. In this paper there is a differentiation between “faction” and citizens.
According to Federalist #10 (written by James Madison), what is the source of wealth (private property)? What factor explains why some people get to possess wealth by owning private property, and others don’t (thus remaining poor)?
According to Madison, the source of wealth is the faculties of men. This term refers to that which has been inherited, their position in the world also it refers to the capacities that people have and how they reflect on what they get to own and not. Moreover, this is described by Madison as something unavoidable and that those who own want to perpetuate for themselves. To conclude, the Federalist paper #10 is nothing more but the representation of how the owning class has explained their situation while persuading others with wealth that protecting it is and will always be their priority.
Do you agree with this explanation of wealth and poverty?
I do not agree with it. Again, after all the readings I’ve come to realize wealth has to be more about what you have inherited than what the capacity to get for yourself by your own means. Thus, wealth is nothing else but a reflection of the perpetuation of a system that allows you to keep that what others have earned with their labour to oneself.
What is the core mission (“first object”) of the US government? Does this surprise you, does it sound different from what our society today seems to suggest the core mission of the government is? Explain.
According to Parenti : “government is there to see that those who have a talent for getting rich are not hampered in any way by those who might be made poor in the process” (Parenti, 7) In other words, the core mission of the US government since the Constitution was written has been to protect the wealth of the owning class as well as provide them the tools to become wealthier. Furthermore, It does sound very different to what society suggests about how the government and the taxes are used to fight the financial inequalities that people in this country have. On the opposite, there is not a real intention of the governmental institutions but to protect the interest of the wealthy and as Madison claims “control the effects of the faction”.
Given the discussion in questions 1-4, are you surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy, and supports a Republican (representative) form of government? Why would d the author dislike a (pure) democratic form of government? Hint: think about how this question connects with the social classes…
Given the discussion, I am not surprised that Federalist #10 is not in favor of democracy. It is clear that Madison, just by the fact that he has been able to be writing that paper proves that he belongs to the owning class. Hence, Madison is not in favor of a democracy because it goes against the interests of his class. A pure democratic form of government means that inequalities all citizens get to participate which creates obstacles and is not beneficial for the owning class However, a Republic or a representative type of government offers a scheme where the faction or the employees don’t get to be heard as much. As a result, a republican type of government becomes more suitable in order to protect the interest of the wealthy or in words of Madison it : “opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking” (Madison, 1).