ANDY LOL: This is a topic woudl need an essay
We need to start from words like freedom and democracy or whatelse.
These words are keywords and for historically reason they are also sacred, it mean that they can change meaning and interpretation, or is better say you can read them in many way, but these words will be never delete by the system (it's easier delete the system probably), because are part of the history of the power itselff, they are part of all the symbols and they concerned about all the foundamentals brick in the wall of the meaning (so of course they are used also for the indoctrination)
when you heard keywords like "we the people" "law is equal everybody" "brotherhood" "equality" "democracy" etc.. etc.. and you scan them, you need to think if you are included or not, it's not something sure, people think it's something sure looking something is recent and unstable like the life of a buttefly.
This is the point
Are you inside the loop of words? are you really brother? are you inside the concept of people? are you citizen? can you exercite the free will? do you have dignity? do you have social barriers between your freedom and the outside line border where freedom mean nothing?
It's not sure, it depend the interpretation, the spirits of the time, the conflicts in act, and we have always the same interpretations since the beginning and the same war for the control of the words.
2500 years of the same loop of interpretatons.
Our source code is broken.
These keywords still are sacred, they show the origin of the power we have now, so noone will touch them, they will work around, in the meaning, like snake twist between dark wood.
This power substituted the ancient regime, with the excepton of England where you have never had nothing else than a liberal revolution that have never really touch the aristocracy, the oligarchy and had absolute nothing to do with democracy until the end ot the fist global war and their decadence as colonialism empire, this diversity played a rule in history.
If you look a dictionary of Oxford precedent the first global war the greek word democracy is traslate as "social revolutiom", they meant terrorism, they meant the french side of the same power, the radical head brother.
Here we have our keyword.
Now, i can parsing a bit only keyword democracy here or i write a wall paper impossble to read.
Word like democracy don't arrive to us with a good meaning, you have thinkers that in a second time start to speak well about this (these second weren't greek in the beginning, you had foreign people in middle east), but the firsts thinkers describe it like something horrible, more or less with same way to describe made by the british empire in their oxford dictionary precedent the restyling as exporter of something they have always hate.
These firsts thinkers, speak simple of goverment of the poors, poor people in charge licterally and directly (rapresentation would be considerate something not accettable at all), and fact the word keep inside the angry god kratos that is a god of violence is not a case.
They were one side scared that these poors took away the money and the property of the richers and one side they saw a lot of probem in the core of the structure about the grow up of demagogy, ignorance, unability of these not enlighted people to create something good.
These was the point also of the roman empire, you have never had the latin version of the word democracy because they though the worst is possbile to think about all the concept, and in general all the greek.
What roman empire thinkers wrote was licterally simple that democracy is the disaster you get for excess of liberty.
I think this is sentence that open some prespective about all these words are in contraddiction each others, they said this was one of the worst thing you could do, give liberty, give freedom too many people, give to the poors, in a word = democracy.
In 4 books about politcs of Aristlotle he arrive into a next point about define the concept clearly.
Because he made an example that enlight you about a way to read the concept. He said that not only democracy is government of the poor, but this have nothing to do with the concept of majorty, he said that if you have a polis with 1300 people and 1000 are rich and they are the majority, democracy exist only where the poors govern, even if they are the minority, welcome in this.
In time of Pericles you had more or less 30000 active citizen in Athens. Who went in the assembly was only the poors, who had nothing.
5000 people that was all the poors and noone else more or less this was the average partecipation in this field.
You had an aristocracy that was for the oligarchy and they never came into the assembley and some people that was in the enlighted side and noble side, that not necessary or not always agreeded with democracy, but that went to the assembly to speak and find a compromise with this power and their need, very often keep them poor and make simple they speak.
This is the main loop more or less.
