Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
How to Polis, 101, Part IIb: Archons (acoup.blog)
44 points by gostsamo on March 28, 2023 | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments



David Graeber argued that 21st century democracy is not directly based on any ancient model, including any Greek one. You'll notice how the Greeks didn't have any permanent civil service*. You'll notice how they kept slaves. You'll also notice how they didn't have much resembling our notion of civil liberties, including free speech: Otherwise, on what grounds was Socrates murdered?

* - We might partially have borrowed this from China.


This sounds like an incredibly obvious observation?

Modern liberal democracy comes from the revolutions in the 17th and 18th centuries. Greek poleis were at most an inspiration, like the ancient Olympics for the modern ones.


> This sounds like an incredibly obvious observation?

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the US who think American liberal ideals are, in some more-or-less abstract manner, descended from ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Maybe it's our neoclassical state buildings. I'm not sure.


Fair. He actually had the more radical idea that "Western" democracy owes a lot to pre-Columbus America.


I don't recall the source, but I'm pretty sure some of my k-12 civics courses mentioned something along the lines of benjamin franklin borrowing some concepts from indigenous civil structures.


> * - We might partially have borrowed this from China.

The British deliberately sinofied their civil service starting in the very early 19th century, and the US didn't properly get a civil service system until late in that century, so I'd be pretty surprised if that's not the case (at least, second-hand, by way of observing and imitating Great Britain)

As for the ancients, I'd buy that our connection to either Athens or the Roman Republic is largely superficial and was mostly upper-class ego-stroking affectation, but I definitely think it leans much heavier toward the latter than the former. Our symbols like the fasces and eagle, Washington's famous and surely-self-conscious imitation of Cincinnatus, that kind of thing.


The United States had legal chattel slavery for the first century of its existence, so that point is moot.

Of course your overall point is correct.


I found this article a bit dry compared to his usual writing. What do you find interesting about it?


Historia Civilis has a YouTube series on the constitutions of Athens and Sparta that describe their protodemocratic and democratic mechanisms.

More broadly, I've always found two classes sorely missing from our required public education diet: basics of law, and the history of republics.


Exactly which republics are missing from the public education diet? Both Athens and Rome are studied to death in public school.

Sparta wasn't a republic (or anyone's idea of a model for a good, or successful society.)


> which republics are missing from the public education diet? Both Athens and Rome are studied to death in public school. Sparta wasn't a republic (or anyone's idea of a model for a good, or successful society.)

Athenian democracy is discussed, but nots its constitutional structure and evolution. Sparta wasn't a republic, but it had elected leaders. (If we want to split hairs: proto republics. Also, right here is a point missed by many: elections a democracy do not make.) Similarly, at least my American education about Rome focussed on the fall of the empire--not the the republic.

Adding to the traditional corpus: the Vajjika League [1], Carthage, the maritime republics, Britain, the Haudenosaunee f/k/a Iroquois. Possibly also confederacies: the Holy Roman Empire, the Swiss, et cetera. Finally, other extant constitutional systems. Basically, how do the bones of government work, what have we tried, what are we trying, and what lessons can we draw from the past.

> anyone's idea of a model for a good, or successful society

There is merit to studying failed societies. The Spartan Gerousia bears striking resemblance to certain ossified structures in modern governments.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajjika_League


I don't know how you intended for your comment to sound, but on my side it looks like that you demand from me to explain myself.

Ignoring that, the article is yet another window in to the past. You can enjoy it as an informational piece. Or if you want to apply some of its lessons to the present day, you can compare it with some of the contemporary attempts at building decentralized organizations. If none of these options appeal to you nor any other, just skip it, HN is not lacking on other content.


I asked because I read it earlier and I'm actually curious what other people liked about it. Maybe I missed something? Someone shared it and other people upvoted it.


Well, I shared it, so the "you" felt a bit personal. :)


Sorry about that!


As I said, it was just perception and I tried not to act on it, assuming that it is not malicious. Whatever, got the downvotes, but hopefully communicated what was interesting for me as well.


You managed to huff and puff about how they can take or leave your submission: “HN is not lacking on other content”. Well done.


Standard conversation prompt. I wouldn't overthink it.


Explaining why you submitted something is not much to ask and not something that the submitter has any right to be offended by.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: