Shankar's claim about the US Constitution being based on Iroquois political organization is nonsense. There isn't the slightest shred of evidence to suggest the Founders "used the model of consensus governance and the exemplar of a written constitution taken from the over 800-year history of the Iroquois in framing their own drafts of the United States constitution." No serious historians think that's true. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/12974
Franklin and Jefferson had almost nothing to do with the federalist papers. Jefferson was in France and Franklin was elderly.
Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote the federalist papers, which are known by political scholars, even today, as the greatest theoretical construction of good governance ever created.
When Hamilton and Madison wrote the majority of those papers, they were not thinking about some ancient tribe in India or the native americans; they were thinking about Montesquieu and Locke, and the failures of Greece (tyranny of the majority) and Rome (fiscal failures and cultural degradation).
And American exceptionalism, is not rooted in the idea that American people are better than everyone, or that we have some deterministic destiny handed down by God; rather, it's predicated upon the fundamental truth that America is the only nation built upon an idea: ideas borne out of the enlightenment: namely, lockean and kantian ethics, which valued natural law, inalienable rights, and individualism. These are not myths. All you have to do is read the correspondence between Jefferson and Adams, and Madison and Jefferson.
There is also the term "British exceptionalism" which often refers to the fact that the UK is one of the only countries to have no codified constitution. It is certainly the oldest country to have never codified a constitution, and that is pretty remarkable. Indeed, one might call it "exceptional".
There is nothing wrong with a little patriotism; in fact without patriotism you cannot have a country.
I think people who misrepresent history are destructionists. These are people who want to destroy the culture, and replace it with some half baked conception.
Furthermore, Chomsky's ideas are a derivative of Rudolph Rocker. He's just promulgating anarcho syndicalism which actually goes all the way back to Bakunin. And I think anarcho syndicalism is worthy of discussion, but you don't need a revolution to achieve anarcho syndicalism. There is nothing in capitalism that prohibits large cooperatives from forming. There is nothing stopping Elon or Bill from permitting workers to vote for their salaries. So why havent these cooperatives been popular outside the one success story of mondragan, which is the only thing Chomsky ever points too.
Presumably because investors dont want to take on risk without a large reward.
Many cooperatives also fail because the people working there are unproductive, and because democratizing industry with internal regulation and policy procedures generally makes it difficult to operate the company. If the workers at a cooperative value their salaries more than research and development, then it won't be long before they are out of business.
Thank you for speaking about my country elegantly. The U.K. is absolutely unqiue.
When I read this part of the dialogue:
"Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson used the model of consensus governance and the exemplar of a written constitution taken from the over 800-year history of the Iroquois"
I immediately came to the conclusion that Ravi has no idea what he's talking about.
Thank you for correcting the historical record. As I'm sure you know, Jefferson did correspond with Madison when the papers were being written, but as you pointed out he was too far away to contribute.
American's should be proud of the framers; they were an exceptional group of individuals existing at the same time, brought together, I believe, by the almighty God. I'm sorry if that religious reference bothers people, but it's just so rare for such great minds to be in the same place at the same time, working towards the same objective. And I would encourage anyone who thinks they can provide a good rebuttal to Hamilton and Madison to put pen to paper. I think you'll find yourself cornered by their logic pretty quickly.
I'd like to expand on your anarcho-syndicalism comment: we all know that investing capital comes with the obvious risk of losing the capital, but the issue here is that when you permit employees with no skin in the game to determine the allocation of that capital (someone elses savings) you've now increased the risk a hundredfold. I mean, who is going to take that risk consistantly? Not me!
This is kind of where people say -- well, just let the collective own the means of production. But now someone else owns the rights to your subsistence. Am I the only one afraid of such things? It didn't work out so well under Mao and Stalin.
But I would argue this is not just about capital; it's about merit too. Most workers don't want managers chosen by popularity; they want their managers to be chosen by merit. Anarchosyndicalists think they are helping workers, but I think the evidence is against them.
I would like to ask Ravishankar to justify his statement that democracy in India is being compromised by Prime Minister Modi's nationalism. May I remind him that his election is actually living proof of the democratic system, where he was democratically voted in, by the overwhelming majority I might add, and not once but twice, and confidently expected to win a third time? And no election shenanigans either time, I might also add!
I've found it curious that supporters of democracy somehow limit their support only to times when it suits their narrative, a la Sam Harris (when he stated that there is justification for subverting elections if it is for the common good, and of course what constitutes "the common good" is not determined by the voting public, but rather intellectuals like Sam who, in their infinite wisdom, know what's best for everyone). We are apparently too ignorant to know this, and must needs look to the likes of Mr Harris to guide us.
And if that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Your statement about some only supporting democracy when their "side" wins in on point. Look at the US and some of the blatantly un-democratic things being done with the full support of the same people who claimed American democracy was in peril because of Orange McBadman. And anytime "nationalism" is mentioned, it's a good bet that people like Ravi are going to interpret it in the worst way possible. It's lazy thinking from someone who should know better.
Shankar's claim about the US Constitution being based on Iroquois political organization is nonsense. There isn't the slightest shred of evidence to suggest the Founders "used the model of consensus governance and the exemplar of a written constitution taken from the over 800-year history of the Iroquois in framing their own drafts of the United States constitution." No serious historians think that's true. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/12974
At first thought you were interviewing this man ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVqvd6mhat8
The conversation might have been improved by some sweet sitar shredding.
aka, Norah Jones's father.
AKA Anoushka Shankar’s father.
Franklin and Jefferson had almost nothing to do with the federalist papers. Jefferson was in France and Franklin was elderly.
Madison, Jay and Hamilton wrote the federalist papers, which are known by political scholars, even today, as the greatest theoretical construction of good governance ever created.
When Hamilton and Madison wrote the majority of those papers, they were not thinking about some ancient tribe in India or the native americans; they were thinking about Montesquieu and Locke, and the failures of Greece (tyranny of the majority) and Rome (fiscal failures and cultural degradation).
And American exceptionalism, is not rooted in the idea that American people are better than everyone, or that we have some deterministic destiny handed down by God; rather, it's predicated upon the fundamental truth that America is the only nation built upon an idea: ideas borne out of the enlightenment: namely, lockean and kantian ethics, which valued natural law, inalienable rights, and individualism. These are not myths. All you have to do is read the correspondence between Jefferson and Adams, and Madison and Jefferson.
There is also the term "British exceptionalism" which often refers to the fact that the UK is one of the only countries to have no codified constitution. It is certainly the oldest country to have never codified a constitution, and that is pretty remarkable. Indeed, one might call it "exceptional".
There is nothing wrong with a little patriotism; in fact without patriotism you cannot have a country.
I think people who misrepresent history are destructionists. These are people who want to destroy the culture, and replace it with some half baked conception.
Furthermore, Chomsky's ideas are a derivative of Rudolph Rocker. He's just promulgating anarcho syndicalism which actually goes all the way back to Bakunin. And I think anarcho syndicalism is worthy of discussion, but you don't need a revolution to achieve anarcho syndicalism. There is nothing in capitalism that prohibits large cooperatives from forming. There is nothing stopping Elon or Bill from permitting workers to vote for their salaries. So why havent these cooperatives been popular outside the one success story of mondragan, which is the only thing Chomsky ever points too.
Presumably because investors dont want to take on risk without a large reward.
Many cooperatives also fail because the people working there are unproductive, and because democratizing industry with internal regulation and policy procedures generally makes it difficult to operate the company. If the workers at a cooperative value their salaries more than research and development, then it won't be long before they are out of business.
Thank you for speaking about my country elegantly. The U.K. is absolutely unqiue.
When I read this part of the dialogue:
"Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson used the model of consensus governance and the exemplar of a written constitution taken from the over 800-year history of the Iroquois"
I immediately came to the conclusion that Ravi has no idea what he's talking about.
Thank you for correcting the historical record. As I'm sure you know, Jefferson did correspond with Madison when the papers were being written, but as you pointed out he was too far away to contribute.
American's should be proud of the framers; they were an exceptional group of individuals existing at the same time, brought together, I believe, by the almighty God. I'm sorry if that religious reference bothers people, but it's just so rare for such great minds to be in the same place at the same time, working towards the same objective. And I would encourage anyone who thinks they can provide a good rebuttal to Hamilton and Madison to put pen to paper. I think you'll find yourself cornered by their logic pretty quickly.
I'd like to expand on your anarcho-syndicalism comment: we all know that investing capital comes with the obvious risk of losing the capital, but the issue here is that when you permit employees with no skin in the game to determine the allocation of that capital (someone elses savings) you've now increased the risk a hundredfold. I mean, who is going to take that risk consistantly? Not me!
This is kind of where people say -- well, just let the collective own the means of production. But now someone else owns the rights to your subsistence. Am I the only one afraid of such things? It didn't work out so well under Mao and Stalin.
But I would argue this is not just about capital; it's about merit too. Most workers don't want managers chosen by popularity; they want their managers to be chosen by merit. Anarchosyndicalists think they are helping workers, but I think the evidence is against them.
Thank you again for your comment.
I would like to ask Ravishankar to justify his statement that democracy in India is being compromised by Prime Minister Modi's nationalism. May I remind him that his election is actually living proof of the democratic system, where he was democratically voted in, by the overwhelming majority I might add, and not once but twice, and confidently expected to win a third time? And no election shenanigans either time, I might also add!
I've found it curious that supporters of democracy somehow limit their support only to times when it suits their narrative, a la Sam Harris (when he stated that there is justification for subverting elections if it is for the common good, and of course what constitutes "the common good" is not determined by the voting public, but rather intellectuals like Sam who, in their infinite wisdom, know what's best for everyone). We are apparently too ignorant to know this, and must needs look to the likes of Mr Harris to guide us.
And if that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Your statement about some only supporting democracy when their "side" wins in on point. Look at the US and some of the blatantly un-democratic things being done with the full support of the same people who claimed American democracy was in peril because of Orange McBadman. And anytime "nationalism" is mentioned, it's a good bet that people like Ravi are going to interpret it in the worst way possible. It's lazy thinking from someone who should know better.