Right - animals are believed to have self-consciousness, which is different than saying they do have self-consciousness, and it being proven so.

This is not simply about a person being dependent on language. This is about the fact that we cannot know ourselves without language. Sure, when we are born there is pure materiality with the body. But the body is not known to us except through language. (revisit Butler's thesis on sex/gender for more).

White men do appear to have better judgment than women and other races. That's reality. You can shame it all you want but it won't change the fact that it is reality.

-@Magnus Anderson

...this conversation is over.

This type of inequality is certainly deleterious to democracy, but that by itself does not transform America into an oligarchic state

The point you are overlooking is this: democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Democracy is a system where the people are in power. Capitalism is a system where a few elites are in power. The terms are antonyms; but people insist on calling America a "democracy" because there is a "free market" - as if the two can co-exist. The existence of a market forecloses on the possibility of there being any democracy.

Where the people are in power politically, they must also be in power economically. The economic system where the people are in power is socialism/communism. Where a few elites are in power politically, they must also be in power economically. The economic system where a few elites are in power is slavery/feudalism/capitalism/fascism and other totalitarian regimes.

And I admit: Ancient Greece was not communist. Therefore, following my logic to its conclusion, even Ancient Greece was not democratic. But the point here is this: ancient Greece was democratic for having sortition, but not democratic for having a class-based society. That is one structural error. The United States is not democratic because it lacks sortition and it is a class-based society. That is two structural errors.

So? Most of those individuals were qualified to run and hold elected positions, and to my point, some of them were elected, and some were not. How is that oligarchic?

This line of reasoning takes for granted what it means to be "qualified." In the current moment, being "qualified" means having attended a prestigious institution, having connections to Washington insiders, and having the blessings of the corporations which already wield power and control over the people. Before a politician is elected, they are selected by those who are already in power. Just look at the recent statements of Donna Brazille that the DNC was thoroughly rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. The reason a lot of people said Hillary Clinton was "qualified" to be president was because she was already secretary of state. In other words, she had experience bombing black and brown nations - and that made her a "qualified expert". Never do people stop to consider the option of simply not bombing anyone! Because "qualified" often means that one is already part of the military industrial complex, and has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice large groups of people at any time.

You must provide other examples of oligarchic countries with which we can compare the USA and see where, if any, parallels exist.

This is not necessary at all. We need not discuss other countries to arrive at the conclusion that the U.S. is not a democracy. Just because the U.S. is more democratic than a lot of countries does not make it a democracy. It simply means that - on a rough scale of 1 to 10, where "1" is not a democracy at all, and "10" is an absolute democracy, the U.S. might score a "2" whereas the other countries might score a "1". There is a difference between what the country claims to be and what they are. The U.S. claims to be a democracy, and feeds us all types of fancy propaganda for this fantasy, but it is totalitarian in action. Democracy is the dream of America, but totalitarianism is the nightmare of real life. We must judge a nation based on what it does, not what it has the potential to do, and not what it claims to be doing.

We can judge a system based on its actions in isolation when measured against our standard for democracy (which, to me, means sortition + communist economy) - as opposed to whether it is 'better' than another nation. What is your definition of democracy? And why do you think the U.S. embodies a democracy? Can we imagine a world where the ordinary citizen has a legitimate chance to serve in government? If not, why not? Doesn't the rejection of this idea further entrench notions of hierarchy?

There are three white men who possess more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population - but America is not an oligarchy, right?

Only 5-6 corporations control 90% of the information we get to hear - but America is not an oligarchy, right?

When we look at the last 50 years in American politics, the most powerful offices in the land (president, vice president, attorney general, governor, senator, secretary of state) have been disproportionately held by members of just three families: Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton - but America is not aristocratic and oligarchic, right?

Reminder: the definition of oligarchy is a system whereby a few people are in power. Claiming that America is not an oligarchy is a demonstration of willful ignorance. American democracy is not "precarious" - its non-existent.

The point is that people are unequal. Some people are better at certain things than others. This applies to legislature too.

I reject the Hobbesian view of human nature here - one that dovetails with Darwin's "survival of the fittest" logic that drives capitalism. To a degree, yes, people are unequal. But the more important point is: people are treated unequally. The idea that our society should be based on nature is an aristocracy: a totalitarian regime.

Some people have a better sense of what is good and what is bad than others

White men are in positions of power, and have been for hundreds of years. Following your logic, you are saying that white men have a "better sense of what is good and what is bad" than women and minorities. Two cheers for racism and sexism!

hahahahha @ sundown rule. Right on!

I can't believe that someone can say that governance does not require expertise. We don't choose our surgeons randomly. We choose our surgeons intelligently. We want the best possible surgeon.

Have you taken a look at the people in positions of leadership lately? Donald Trump is the leader of the free world. The Terminator was governor of California. Jerry Springer was the mayor of Cincinnati. And now, Kid Rock, The Rock, and Caitlyn Jenner are considering runs for office.

Have you taken a look at the economic state of affairs? Nowhere in the U.S. is the minimum wage sufficient to cover the costs of the average apartment. This is the handiwork of "experts"?! I am not impressed. As George Carlin said: "these are the types of results you would expect from an office temp with a bad attitude." These so-called experts are deeply incompetent if this is the best they can produce. Consider the following facts: in the United States, there are 500,000 homeless people - and there are 3,000,000 empty homes. There are 6 empty homes for every homeless person. The solution to this problem is obvious and simple. But since there are so many "experts" in government, the problem persists. The average Joe could not screw things up any worse than Clinton, Obama, or Trump.

Additionally, the title of this post - like the C.L.R. James book - is "every cook can govern." It is not "every cook can perform surgery." We are making a differentiation between governance and ordinary positions of employment.

But we need to understand the relationship between the division of labor and how power is distributed within government. As I stated, politicians tend to be white males. When we look at the demographics of physicians in the United States over the past 30+ years, 75% of them are white males. Is this a coincidence? I think not! This is not because white males are born with the genetic aptitude to perform surgery. It is because white males are born with power and privilege - which makes it easier for them to end up in high level positions. Not to mention: surgery is expensive! Women and minorities earn significantly less than white men. So not only are white men the surgeons, but they are the ones most likely to afford the surgery, while everyone else simply goes without or is forced to file for bankruptcy.

The reasons that women and minorities are not surgeons is the same reason women and minorities are not in positions of governance. What we are calling "expertise" is the alibi of oppressors. It is easier for us to believe that white men are "experts" than women and minorities. So we need to completely detox our minds of this aristocratic/meritocratic/capitalistic way of thinking and organizing society.

Random selection is not childish. What is childish is continuing to defend and adhere to a system that does not work for the masses of people.

Yes - perfect. It is very simple concept. I have more faith in the average citizen to govern than I do Hillary Clinton and company.

Why would anyone want a system in which every cook can govern? Why would anyone want a random selection?

Because anything less than this is an oligarchy. Governance impacts everyone - so everyone should be put in a position to govern. Anyone who believes that governance requires expertise is still laboring under aristocratic/religious/capitalist views of power distribution.

No one stating that "Donald Trump is threatening Democracy" is equating American Democracy with the Democracy of Ancient Greece.

Yes, and that is part of the problem. If people actually read about and understood the democracy of Ancient Greece, they would not be claiming that America was a democracy at all.

This is not simply a matter of using "shorthand" - this is about political illiteracy. People are fundamentally misreading the nature of the institutions in question, to the point where it is flat out disingenuous. The United States is an oligarchy - which is the antonym of democracy. Words matter - we do not get to toss around random terms without an understanding of their history, and then apply them to the exact opposite phenomena.

Brilliant response. I certainly agree!