"Please do correct for me any errors that you discern – thanks in advance? "

Not sure if they are errors , but I'll throw in my comments into the discussion for expansion on your post.

"Re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/
noun

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

Sadly, "we the people" is the problem, because a) its not true, there is no such thing as we the people, and b) its sneaky way to bribe or seduce people into being complicant in their own opression. That is why I'm against "we the people",or the people's state. It has created more misary and death and destruction than any other system because of the forces in unleashed. I don't know if we can return that genie back in the bottle, but I'm against any system that involves concept of people's state.

To expand on this, how it came about, why is a problem etc. I suggest excellent article:

Written by Dan Sanchez - Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor of FEE.org.

Source: [fee.org]

.......................................

“Humankind has long since become accustomed to the mass destruction of those identified as enemy combatants—and the enslavement of others taken in war. In the past, millions have been put to the sword arbitrarily, because of their ethnic origin or their religious convictions. But it was the twentieth century that managed to bring even more capriciousness and inhumanity to the mayhem. By the mid-twentieth century, mass murder came to typify an entire class of political regimes.

Even before the coming of the Second World War, millions of citizens were destroyed by those who governed, even though their rulers were nominally at peace with everyone. Untold numbers were threatened with ‘shunning,’ incarceration, expulsion, or death—because of membership in a proscribed class, ethnic, or religious community. However prepared those threatened might have been to abandon those identities—to become whatever they wished by those who ruled—that possibility was foreclosed. Those afflicted with ‘counterrevolutionary class consciousness’ could do little, if anything, to have themselves restored to good favor. Those so unfortunate as to have ‘bourgeois’—landlord or capitalist—backgrounds were denied schooling or employment, and were often marked for destruction. Rulers sometimes sentenced them to thankless labor, exiled them, transported them, incarcerated them, and frequently, if not always, killed them. Finally, those deemed members of a scorned race or despised class could do very little to earn tolerance, much less security. Minimally scheduled for abuse, many, if not most, were ultimately consigned to martyrdom.

In the twentieth century, hundreds of millions of human beings suffered unnatural deaths at the hands of those who governed them. Of course, mass murder has not been unique in history, but its sanction by public rationale—providing motives to rulers, and influencing the behavior of the masses—may well be. That such a rationale licenses the systematic destruction of entire groups within a community at peace, contributes to the enormity.

That such a homicidal public enterprise has behind it the persuasiveness of moral counsel, the force of law, and the power of the state, renders its enormity almost incomprehensible. In such instances, the murder of those the state is expected to protect is not random, but governed by principle, and facilitated by carefully contrived organization. Murder on such scale, supported by public endorsement, and employing public instrumentalities, must necessarily engage the overt or tacit participation of large segments of the community—so that virtually all are made complicit. In substance, in the twentieth, humanity has experienced a century in which governments have sponsored, sanctioned, and created special facilities for the mass destruction of innocent lives. It has engaged almost everyone in the doing. All of which makes the mass murders of the twentieth century perhaps unique in history.”

• Totalitarianism and Political Religion An Intellectual History, 2012 by A. James Gregor

...what made it possible is "peoples state".

In the same century, (18th century) four ideas swept through the West and shook the world and changed it forever. Liberalism, its reaction conservatism, and from it and with it grew Nationalism and Socialism, ultimately becoming National Socialism in Germany, fascism in Italy, and Communism in Russia, China and elsewhere. What they all have in common is that they sold the idea to the people that they participate in politics and from that lie that crated factories of death. Hence I'm against "people's state"

"Posted by: Fox News ~ Sep 2, 2022 “JD Vance: Biden is effectively declaring war on half the country”"

I made a post to address this as well: [slug.com]

I just don't think that JD Vance is correct when he says that only way to solve this problem is by voting. There is no voting out of this one, the only way this will change is after global economy crash and power vacuum is filled by other regimes. There is no voting out of this anymore. That window has been closed since at least 1970's. No matter who you vote for, the system remains and it will protect itself because everyone in politics depends on the system. What is needed is new system to move forward, and before that this one must run its course. I am not for communism or anything like that, I am against concept of people's state in general, but I doubt I'll have my way, so we will probably get new system that will be continuation of the old system , but with different people in power. Weather it will be better or worse, remains to be seen. But as long as current people are in power in this system, no voting will make any meaningful change.

"I started this post as a result of listening to one of their socialist indoctrinators by the name of John Perkins as I recall. He was shoveling honey out to a crown of idealistic young people like there’s no tomorrow. At any rate, the video was very lengthy, and I certainly don’t want to risk helping these socialists by linking hereto – you can find him if you must?

"Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I should know; I was an EHM."" — John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

I think he is leaning to be socialist in arguments, but he is predatory in actions. He didn't have a change of hearth I think as much as method, despite what he says.

In the 1980s Perkins left Main and founded and directed an independent energy company. In the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Perkins claims that his company was successful due to 'coincidences' orchestrated by those appreciative of his silence about the work he says he did as an economic hit man.

Perkins is a founder and board member of Dream Change and The Pachamama Alliance, nonprofit organizations devoted to promoting environmentally sustainable and socially just societies. He has lectured at Harvard, Oxford, and more than 50 universities around the world, and is the author of eight books on global economics and indigenous cultures. He has been featured on ABC, NBC, CNN, CNBC, NPR, A&E, the History Channel, Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Der Spiegel, and many other publications, as well as in numerous documentaries. He was awarded the Lennon Ono Grant for Peace 2012, and Rainforest Action Network Challenging Business As Usual Award, 2006.

Basically he adopted some form of Agenda 230 type deal it seems. That way he gets to lectures on campuses pretending how evil "capitalism" is, but much like Al Gore, its a cover up for more of the same.

"The founding fathers were correct in their view that democracy unchecked is just another form of tyranny – unchecked by an Electoral College and a Constitution that limits powers of the government? "

On paper, yeah sure this sounds like good attempt to deal with the problem they knew existed.

"The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." - James Madison (1751 - 1836), The Federalist Papers, 1788 - 4th president of US

But off course the only thing that can prevent conspirators, conspiring to consolidate power and keep people out of it, is well educated, vilegante people, and that is why changing of the education system was important.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." ― Benjamin Franklin

"Society is built on three legs: economics, politics and religion. These three must be mutually compatible or the society will not last long, and the dust bin of history has plenty of examples of societies that failed when division set in. During the transition from Capitalism to Technocracy, today’s modern society appears to be dysfunctional and irrational. The underlying reality is that as the societal model morphs into Technocracy, nothing is clear to those who try to understand the world using traditional and outdated concepts. The reader has already discovered how radically different the “green” economy is compared to traditional price-based economic theory. Now we must explore how management of society will be conducted by Technocrats, and how that differs from traditional political concepts of a government which is, in the famous words of Abraham Lincoln at the Gettysburg Address, “of the people, by the people and for the people”." this is outlined in Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

However where I disagree with Patrick M. Wood is that his idea of technocracy is somehow separate from Marxism. It is not, it just adopted itself. Like all different flavors of the Marxist religion.

"In one important sense, Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.”

― Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

“Therein lies the true essence of Marxism. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ only ever works with a gun in your hand." ― Philip Kerr, Prussian Blue

“Marxism is not necessarily what Karl Marx wrote in Das Kapital, also called Capital. A Critique of Political Economy, but whatever it is that all the warring sects believe, who claim to be the faithful. From the gospels you cannot deduce the history of Christianity, nor from the Constitution the political history of America. It is Das Kapital as conceived, the gospels as preached and the preachment as understood, the Constitution as interpreted and administered, to which you have to go.” ― Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion

“Hence a communist society would have a new ethical basis. It has been claimed – by Lenin among others – that Marxism is a scientific system, free from any ethical judgements or postulates. These are the essential points of ‘the first Marxism’. It is manifestly not a scientific enterprise in the sense in which we understand science today. Its theories are not derived from detailed factual studies, or subjected to controlled tests or observations.” ― Anonymous

“The appeal by twentieth-century pluralists to scientific method was also ideologically—and even messianically—driven. It ignored scientific data that interfered with environmentalist assumptions and misrepresented socialist faith as “scientific planning.” ― Paul Edward Gottfried

Roger Scruton: How Socialism got Repackaged into Human Rights

"The founding fathers established the Electoral College way of electing the Executive Branch to prevent highly populated areas from taking advantage of the sparsely populated ones?

"Then that not being enough, the installed The Constitution of these United States to specifically protect minorities from abuse by the majority (aka populism)? "

That's true.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.... A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” ― Thomas Jefferson

This is also true: “A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” ― Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States of America, from 1901 to 1909

"Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve." ― Edward Albee

If you want to understand democracy, spend less time in the library with Plato, and more time in the buses with people. ― Simeon Strunsky

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ― Winston Churchill (British Orator, Author and Prime Minister during World War II. 1874-1965)

P.S.
I assume some mean by democracy, republic and use the term democracy to talk about voting for people in office by democratic means, while others mention direct democracy.

"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame." ― Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988), US educator & writer

"Today, democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least." — Robert Byrne

“The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action. ” ― Terry Goodkind, Naked Empire

“Sometimes it seems that everybody in the world is in favor of democracy, just as long as it gives them the result they want.” ― Jack Lessenberry

“I began to realize that maybe my opinions just didn’t fit in with the liberal status quo, which seems to mean that you must absolutely hate Trump, his supporters and everything they believe. If you dare not to protest or boycott Trump, you are a traitor. If you dare to question liberal stances or make an effort toward understanding why conservatives think the way they do, you are a traitor. It can seem like liberals are actually against free speech if it fails to conform with the way they think. And I don’t want to be a part of that club anymore.” ― Chadwick Moore

“The ruling power is always faced with the question, ‘In such and such circumstances, what would you do?’, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.” ― George Orwell

“Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, printed at New York, 1838

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." ― Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

“What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absolute master of my liberty and my life; if it monopolizes vitality and existence to such a degree that when it languishes, everything around it must also languish; when it sleeps, everything must also sleep; and when it dies, everything must also perish?

There are some nations in Europe whose inhabitants think of themselves in a sense as colonists, indifferent to the fate of the place they live in. The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.

When a nation has reached this point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, printed at New York, 1838

philosopher and murdered by a politician.” ― Aysha Taryam, The Opposite of Indifference: A Collection of Commentaries

"Too little liberty brings stagnation and too much brings chaos."

• Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), British author, mathematician, & philosopher

"The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." - James Madison (1751 - 1836), The Federalist Papers, 1788 - 4th president of US

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." ― Benjamin Franklin

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites."
― Edmund Burke, We Have Met the Enemy: Self-Control in an Age of Excess, 2011

“How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

"In the long-run every Government is the exact symbol of its People, with their wisdom and unwisdom; we have to say, Like People like Government." - Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881), Scottish author, essayist, & historian ― Past and Present, 1843

“Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” ― Abraham Lincoln

"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without." - Edmund Burke, We Have Met the Enemy: Self-Control in an Age of Excess, 2011

I'm convinced that you never have to give up liberties to be safe. I think you're less safe when you give up your liberties. – Ron Paul

"Few men desire liberty, for it requires personal responsibility. The majority are satisfied with a just master."

• Sallust (86 BC - 34 BC), Roman historian & politician

“Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear.”
― Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War

"...we may assert that liberalism believes man's nature to be not fixed but changing, with an unlimited or at any rate indefinitely large potential for positive (good, favorable, progressive) development. This may be contrasted with the traditional belief, expressed in the theological doctrines of Original Sin and the real existence of the Devil, that human nature had a permanent, unchanging essence, and that man is partly corrupt as well as limited in his potential. "Man, according to liberalism, is born ignorant, not wicked," declares Professor J. Salwyn Schapiro, writing as a liberal on liberalism.

I rather think that the attitude towards tradition furnishes the most accurate single shibboleth for distinguishing liberals from conservatives; and still more broadly, the Left from the Right, since with respect to change the revolutionary and reactionary are merely pushing the respective attitude of liberal and conservative toward their limits.

Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. When once this initial and final sentence is understood, everything about liberalism - the beliefs, emotions and values associated with it, the nature of its enchantment, its practical record, its future - falls into place."

― James Burnham, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism

“Liberals are more likely to see people as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether individuals can climb without governmental help. My own analysis using 2005 survey data from Syracuse University shows that about 90 percent of conservatives agree that “While people may begin with different opportunities, hard work and perseverance can usually overcome those disadvantages.” Liberals — even upper-income liberals — are a third less likely to say this.” ― Arthur C. Brooks

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ― Cicero

“Young people no longer “believe in the old standards and authorities, and they’re not intelligent enough, many of them, to put a code of morals and conduct in place of the sanctions that have been destroyed for them.” ― Sarah Churchwell, Careless People: Murder, Mayhem, and the Invention of The Great Gatsby

The legions of reporters who cover politics don't want to quit the clash and thunder of electoral combat for the dry duty of analyzing the federal budget. As a consequence, we have created the perpetual presidential campaign. ― Hugh Sidey

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right.” ― H. L. Mencken, Minority Report

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
― Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

"What is politics but persuading the public to vote for this and support that and endure these for the promise of those?"
―Gilbert Highet

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
― Pericles

“[I suspect] that in the drive toward the liberal universalist notion of human rights that characterized the last fifty or so years, there has been an accompanying oversensitivity that, in practice, keeps us atomized and more likely to be manipulated and have our rights impinged upon.” ― Darren O'Donnell, Social Acupuncture

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." ― Benjamin Franklin

As we have seen how human nature always has the final word.

"Let me try making this clear, when an election goes the approved way of the socialist elite – it’s democracy in action. BUT, when an election doesn’t go the approved way of the socialist elites – why it’s ‘evil populism!’ "

To accomplish this they also brainwash people , children when they are young, they engage in endless censorship and propaganda and they have to erase history because again it could be used as reference from which to judge the party. That is why they put effort in rewriting history, tearing down statues etc.

Language matters because whoever controls the words controls the conversation, because whoever controls the conversation controls its outcome, because whoever frames the debate has already won it, because telling the truth has become harder and harder to achieve in an America drowning in Orwellian Newspeak. -- Erica Jong

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day be day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right." -- George Orwell

In George Orwell's dystopian classic 1984, doublethink is the act of holding, simultaneously, two opposite, individually exclusive ideas or opinions and believing in both simultaneously and absolutely. Doublethink requires using logic against logic or suspending disbelief in the contradiction.

The three slogans of the party — "War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength" — are obvious examples of doublethink. The act of doublethink also occurs in more subtle details throughout the novel.

Project Vertias - A reading from Orwell’s 1984 by James O’Keefe - Book 2, Chapter 9

"These socialist educators holding the minds of your young hostage at present truly do believe they’re doing the right thing by indoctrinating your children to be socialist activists? And they’re not indoctrinating them (your children) with vinegar (aka reality)? No, they’re indoctrinating them by spoon feeding them large quantities of honey (aka idealistic altruism)?"

Critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) emerged in Germany during the 1930s. It was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory." He described it as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it.

Horkheimer is echoing Marx's famous Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach. Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy, Horkheimer critiqued both the model of science put forward by logical positivism, and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and totalitarianism of orthodox Marxism and the actually existing Communism of the Soviet Union. He described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them." Critical theory involves a normative dimension, either through criticizing society from some general theory of values, norms (or oughts), or through criticizing it based on its own espoused values (i.e. immanent critique).

The Frankfurt School argued that ideology served to buttress Western capitalist societies and that it was the principal obstacle to human liberation in the form of a communist revolution.

The core concepts of critical theory are that it should:

1. be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time); and

2. improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology.

   Postmodern critical social theory

   Postmodern critical approaches have been adopted in a variety of academic and theoretical disciplines, including cultural studies, philosophy of science, economics, linguistics, architecture, feminist theory, and literary criticism, as well as art movements in fields such as literature, contemporary art, and music. Focusing on language, symbolism, communication, and social construction, critical theory has been applied within the social sciences as a critique of the very notion of representation in the social sciences.[22]

While modernist critical theory concerns itself with "forms of authority and injustice that accompanied the development of industrial and corporate capitalism as a political-economic system," postmodern critical theory politicizes social problems "by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings."[23] Meaning itself is seen as unstable due to the rapid transformation in social structures. As a result, the focus of research is centered on local manifestations, rather than broad generalizations.

Postmodern critical research is characterized by the crisis of representation, which rejects the idea that a researcher's work is an "objective depiction of a stable other." Instead, many postmodern scholars have adopted "alternatives that encourage reflection about the 'politics and poetics' of their work. In these accounts, the embodied, collaborative, dialogic, and improvisational aspects of qualitative research are clarified."

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory developed within legal studies starting in the 1970s. It was pioneered by Law Professor Derek Bell at Harvard. It spread to other American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal studies focusing on race issues.

Critical Race Theory deconstructs some premises and arguments of legal theory: "To the emerging race crits, rights discourse held a social and transformative value in the context of racial subordination that transcended the narrower question of whether reliance on rights alone could bring about any determinate results." As described by Derrick Bell, critical race theory in Harris' view is committed to "radical critique of the law (which is normatively deconstructionist) and…radical emancipation by the law (which is normatively reconstructionist)."

As Critical Race Theory developed, postmodern critical theories, including feminist jurisprudence, and postcolonial theory, also became popular tools. The rise of identity politics and the postmodern understanding of social constructionism created a new focus. Identities began to be seen as created by one's position in society. The social system functions for those who are dominant, while other identities are marginalized, and people in those groups oppressed. Students of Bell, like Kimberlé Crenshaw, embraced the approach of postmodern critical theory's understanding of power/knowledge. Her theory, intersectionality, argues that the socially constructed identities, should not be resisted, but rather embraced. They are a source of empowerment for marginalized peoples. Those identities, racial, gender, etc. are the basis for the critique of universalized knowledge and political power. Intersectionality creates a system of oppression, in which there are multiple bases for oppression based not only on race, but also gender and other points of discrimination. While Critical Race Theory began by addressing issues of access and poverty, intersectionality played in role in moving it away from a more materialist focus to one based on postmodern view based on identity politics.

Pedagogy

Critical theorists have widely credited Paulo Freire for the first applications of critical theory towards education/pedagogy, considering his best-known work to be Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a seminal text in what is now known as the philosophy and social movement of critical pedagogy. Dedicated to the oppressed and based on his own experience helping Brazilian adults to read and write, Freire includes a detailed Marxist class analysis in his exploration of the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. In the book, Freire calls traditional pedagogy the "banking model of education," because it treats the student as an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge, like a piggy bank. He argues that pedagogy should instead treat the learner as a co-creator of knowledge.

In contrast to the banking model, the teacher in the critical-theory model is not dispenser of all knowledge, the sage on a stage, but a participant who learns with and from the students—in conversation with them; even as they are learning from the teacher. The goal is to liberate the learner from an oppressive construct of teacher versus student, a dichotomy analogous to colonizer and colonized. It is not enough for the student to analyze societal power structures and hierarchies, to merely recognize imbalance and inequity; critical theory pedagogy must also empower the learner to both reflect and act on that reflection to challenge an oppressive status quo.

[newworldencyclopedia.org]

...................................

Also worth noting is that Rockefeller has a big play on education system in America.

The General Education Board was a private organization which was used primarily to support higher education and medical schools in the United States, and to help rural white and black schools in the South, as well as modernize farming practices in the South. It helped eradicate hookworm and created the county agent system in American agriculture, linking research as state agricultural experiment stations with actual practices in the field.

The Board was created in 1902 after John D. Rockefeller donated an initial $1,000,000 dollars to its cause. The Rockefeller family would eventually give over $180 million to fund the General Education Board. Prominent member Frederick Taylor Gates envisioned "The Country School of To-Morrow," wherein "young and old will be taught in practicable ways how to make rural life beautiful, intelligent, fruitful, re-creative, healthful, and joyous."[1] By 1934 the Board was making grants of $5.5 million a year. It spent nearly all its money by 1950 and closed in 1964.

[en.wikipedia.org]

...................................

“Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, but compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.

But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.”

Psychologists use the term "socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society.

It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended.

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin.

We use the term "oversocialized” to describe such people. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations.

Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most leftwing segment. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society.

Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle.”

― Theodore J. Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future: The Unabomber Manifesto

...................................

“Originated by the green leading-edge in academia, this aperspectival madness of “no truth” leapt out of the universities, and morphed into an enormous variety of different forms—from direct “no-truth” claims, to rabid egalitarianism, to excessive censoring of free speech and unhampered knowledge acquisition, to extreme political correctness (that forced the best comedians to refuse to perform at colleges any more, since the audiences “lacked all sense of humor”: you’re allowed to laugh at nothing in a “no value is better” world—even though that value itself is held to be better), to far-left political agendas that in effect “equalized poverty,” to egalitarian “no judgment” attitudes that refused to see any “higher” or “better” views at all (even though its own view was judged “higher” and “better” than any other), to modes of entertainment that everywhere eulogized egalitarian atland, to a denial of all growth hierarchies by confusing them with dominator hierarchies (which effectively crushed all routes to actual growth in any systems anywhere), to the media’s sense of egalitarian “fairness” that ended up trying to give equal time to every possible, no matter how factually idiotic, alternative viewpoint (such as Holocaust deniers), to echo chambered social media where “pleasant lies” and “reassuring falsehoods” were the standard currency.” ― Ken Wilber

“Postmodernism's specifically academic appeal comes from its being another in the sequence of all-purpose "unmasking" strategies that offer a way to criticize the intellectual efforts of others not by engaging with them on the ground, but by diagnosing them from a superior vantage point and charging them with inadequate self-awareness. Logical positivism and Marxism were used by academics in this way, and postmodernist relativism is a natural successor in the role. [The Sleep of Reason]” ― Thomas Nagel

“Cultural Marxism, now called "Political Correctness" is a loaded gun that one puts to their own head. The narrative illusion normalizes the abnormal and is an elitist weapon over minions for citizen vs. citizen policing for establishment control.” ― James Scott, Senior Fellow, Center for Cyber Influence Operations Studies

PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM Aug 9, 2018 It's rampant. It's infectious. And it's spreading - fast!

"In a socialist democracy voting is more than expected to go the way approved by the elitist ruling class – does it not?"

Socialist democracy is a political system that align with principles of both socialism and democracy. It includes ideologies such as council communism, democratic socialism, Soviet democracy as well as Marxist democracy like the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was embodied in the Soviet system (1917–1991).

It can also denote a system of political party organization like democratic centralism, or a form of democracy espoused by political parties or groups that support Marxist–Leninist one-party states. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1992) styled itself a socialist democracy as did the People's Republic of Bulgaria (1946–1990) and the Socialist Republic of Romania (1947–1989).
Several parties or groups which tend to have a connection to the reunified Fourth International use this label. Parties include Socialist Democracy in Australia, Socialist Democracy in Brazil, Socialist Democracy in Ireland, the Socialist Democracy Group in England, the Socialist Democracy Party in Canada and the Socialist Democracy Party in Turkey.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) claims to maintain principles of socialist democracy. CCP Chairman Mao Zedong advocates the people's democratic dictatorship which emphasizes the importance of dictatorship of the proletariat in the democratic process. In the reform and opening-up period, Deng Xiaoping said that that democracy is the essential element of socialism as there will be no socialism and modernization without democracy. Under CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping, the CCP continues being a socialist democracy, under which the National People's Congress selects state leaders.
..............................................................................

Soviet Union and Bolshevism

In the 19th century, The Communist Manifesto (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels called for the international political unification of the European working classes in order to achieve a Communist revolution; and proposed that, because the socio-economic organization of communism was of a higher form than that of capitalism, a workers' revolution would first occur in the economically advanced, industrialized countries. Marxist social democracy was strongest in Germany throughout the 19th century, and the Social Democratic Party of Germany inspired Lenin and other Russian Marxists.
During the revolutionary ferment of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and 1917, there arose working-class grassroots attempts of direct democracy with Soviets (Russian for "council" ). According to Lenin and other theorists of the Soviet Union, the soviets represent the democratic will of the working class and are thus the embodiment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw the soviet as the basic organizing unit of society in a communist system and supported this form of democracy.

Thus, the results of the long-awaited Constituent Assembly election in 1917, which Lenin's Bolshevik Party lost to the Socialist Revolutionary Party, were nullified when the Constituent Assembly was disbanded in January 1918.

Functionally, the Leninist vanguard party was to provide the working class with the political consciousness (education and organisation) and revolutionary leadership necessary to depose capitalism in Imperial Russia. After the October Revolution of 1917, Leninism was the dominant version of Marxism in Russia, and, in establishing soviet democracy, the Bolshevik régime suppressed socialists who opposed the revolution, such as the Mensheviks and factions of the Socialist Revolutionary Party.
In November 1917, Lenin issued the Decree on Workers' Control, which called on the workers of each enterprise to establish an elected committee to monitor their enterprise's management.

That month they also issued an order requisitioning the country's gold, and nationalised the banks, which Lenin saw as a major step toward socialism. In December, Sovnarkom established a Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh), which had authority over industry, banking, agriculture, and trade. In early 1918, Sovnarkom cancelled all foreign debts and refused to pay interest owed on them. In April 1918, it nationalised foreign trade, establishing a state monopoly on imports and exports. In June 1918, it decreed nationalisation of public utilities, railways, engineering, textiles, metallurgy, and mining, although often these were state-owned in name only. Full-scale nationalisation did not take place until November 1920, when small-scale industrial enterprises were brought under state control.

A faction of the Bolsheviks known as the "Left Communists" criticised Sovnarkom's economic policy as too moderate; they wanted nationalisation of all industry, agriculture, trade, finance, transport, and communication. Lenin believed that this was impractical at that stage, and that the government should only nationalise Russia's large-scale capitalist enterprises, such as the banks, railways, larger landed estates, and larger factories and mines, allowing smaller businesses to operate privately until they grew large enough to be successfully nationalised.

Lenin also disagreed with the Left Communists about economic organisation; in June 1918, he argued that centralised economic control of industry was needed, whereas Left Communists wanted the economic control of each factory to be completely decentralized, a syndicalist approach that Lenin considered detrimental to the cause of socialism.

Adopting a left libertarian perspective, both the Left Communists and some factions in the Communist Party critiqued the decline of democratic institutions in Russia. Internationally, some socialists decried Lenin's regime and denied that he was establishing socialism; in particular, they highlighted the lack of widespread political participation, popular consultation, and industrial democracy. In late 1918, the Czech-Austrian Marxist Karl Kautsky authored an anti-Leninist pamphlet condemning the October Revolution for not first transitioning towards capitalism, to which Lenin published a vociferous reply.

..............................................................................

“You have to understand the nature of Communism. The very ideology of Communism, all of Lenin's teachings, are that anyone who doesn't take what's lying in front of him is a fool If you can take it, do so. If you can attack, strike. But if there's a wall, retreat. The Communist leaders respect only firmness and have contempt for persons who continually give in to them.

All Communist Parties, upon attaining power, have become completely merciless. But at the stage before they achieve power, it is necessary to use disguises.

“It is astonishing that Communism has been writing about itself in the most open way, in black and white, for 125 years, and even more openly, more candidly in the beginning. The book Communist Manifesto, for instance, which everyone knows by name and which almost no one takes the trouble to read, contains even more terrible things than what has actually been done. It is perfectly amazing. The whole world can read, everyone is literate, yet somehow no one wants to understand. Humanity acts as if it does not understand what Communism is, as if it does not want to understand, is not capable of understanding.” ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West

“It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world. Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.” ― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

“Marxism was a simple substitute for Christianity. Replace God with Marx, Satan with the bourgeoisie, Heaven with a classless society, the Church with the Party,” ― Arundhati Roy, The God of Small Things

“It is quite true that Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. But of course we now know that Marxism is the crack cocaine of the people.”
― Douglas Wilson

“In Christianity this evolution lasted centuries; in Bolshevism — only decades. If Lenin was the St. Paul of Marxism, who set out to transplant the movement from its original environment into new lands, Stalin was already its Constantine the Great. He was, to be sure, not the first Emperor to embrace Marxism, but the first Marxist revolutionary to become the autocratic ruler of a vast empire.” ― Isaac Deutscher, Russia After Stalin

“Interestingly, Marxism, Communism and its derivative, Socialism, when seen years later in practice, are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority which is left with virtually no property or legal rights.” ― Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, The Synagogue Of Satan - Updated, Expanded, And Uncensored

“Therein lies the true essence of Marxism. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ only ever works with a gun in your hand." ― Philip Kerr, Prussian Blue

“Marx, concerning himself with a less remote time ("Critique of the Gotha Program" ), declared with equal conviction that the one and only means of correcting offenders (true, he referred to criminals; he never even conceived that his pupils might consider politicals offenders) was not solitary contemplation, not moral soul-searching, not repentance, and not languishing (for all that was superstructures!)—but productive labor. He himself had never taken a pick in hand. To the end of his days he never pushed a wheelbarrow, mined coal, felled timber, and we don't even know how his firewood was split—but he wrote that down on paper, and the paper did not resist.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, Books III-IV

“Communism looked good on paper, you know' — but how many people who say that even know what communism looks like on paper?”
― T.J. Kirk

“Are you aware that non-racist, peace-licking, universal-personhood-touting communist governments slaughtered an estimated ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE in the 20th century? The commies beat Hitler 20-1. Their unbounded love for ‘humanity’ didn’t seem to put a check on an even stronger love for controlling and killing human beings. So much for your murky notions of government-mandated humanism.”
― Jim Goad, The New Church Ladies: The Extremely Uptight World of "Social Justice"

“Socialism is a scourge, simply because it is just another mask of Communism.”
― Jean-Michel Rene Souche, Why America Will Take the Trump Train: A Essay on the 2016 Presidential Campaign

“These people, who had experienced on their own hides twenty-four years of Communist happiness, knew by 1941 what as yet no one else in the world knew: that nowhere on the planet, nowhere in history, was there a regime more vicious, more bloodthirsty, and at the same time more cunning and ingenious than the Bolshevik, the self-styled Soviet regime. That no other regime on earth could compare with it either in the number of those it had done to death, in hardiness, in the range of its ambitions, in its thoroughgoing and unmitigated totalitarianism—no, not even the regime of its pupil Hitler, which at that time blinded Western eyes to all else.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, Books V-VII

"In a socialist democracy voting is more than expected to go the way approved by the elitist ruling class – does it not? I do wonder if socialist governments wouldn’t be a little more accurately characterized as ‘oligarchies’-- how say you? And yes, yes I know that the meaning of the word ‘oligarchy’ has changed over , say, the last half century or so? It used to mean joint ruler by a particular family. But I believe the modern definition fits the current situation like OJ’s glove?"

Sounds like another sneaky engineering of language.

“Interestingly, Marxism, Communism and its derivative, Socialism, when seen years later in practice, are nothing but state-capitalism and rule by a privileged minority, exercising despotic and total control over a majority which is left with virtually no property or legal rights.” ― Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, The Synagogue Of Satan - Updated, Expanded, And Uncensored

"I suppose it’s not completely untrue to harp on democracy – but is it altogether right? I mean, the pledge of allegiance doesn’t have the word democracy anywhere in it – does it? However it’s not shy about pledging allegiance to this republic of the United States? "

Yes, there are no direct democracies, only republics are left on paper at least. My hypothesis was that splitting the two parties in America into democrats and republicans were the main influence of this.

It is populizred to go and spread democracy around the world, not republics around the world. I imagine this is democrats way of hijacking the term republic and associating it with their party. To defend democracy instead of to defend the republic, plays in favor of the democratic party, not republican one.

So I think it’s a deliberate and sneaky change in language to frame the debate.