James Madison Admits The Elites Divide The Working Class to Preserve Their Wealth and Power
An Annotated Essay of The Federalist Papers #10
This article is for JoeWrote premium readers. Upgrade to access it and support my work. Financial support is the lifeblood of this publication. Without it, JoeWrote couldn’t exist.
If you’re financially strained, I offer solidarity pricing, where you can pay what you can. I appreciate your support! — Joe
It is said capitalists are the most devoted Marxists. Not in the sense that they wish for the working class to seize control of the economy but in their unwavering commitment to Marx’s theory of class. Unlike many workers who lack class consciousness, the powerful know they’re on the same team. Their businesses might compete against each other in the market, but they happily join forces to quell democratic and egalitarian movements that threaten their wealth and power. This is why Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board. The billionaires have traded barbs publicly but are mutually interested in destroying labor power.
Solidarity between the elites isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s baked into the foundation of the United States, explicitly articulated in the nation’s most revered formative texts, The Federalist Papers. Written in 1788 to argue for ratifying the proposed U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers (sometimes called The Federalist) reveal the founders’ true intentions for the government they built. In Federalist #10, future president James Madison, nicknamed “the father of the Constitution,” writes to assuage the concerns of his fellow aristocrats, who were worried democracy would enable the American working class to seize their businesses and wealth. In doing so, Madison provides a blatant admission of how elites divide the proletariat to protect their wealth. Read today, it’s quite shocking.
Madison boldly opens his argument by stating factions are an existential threat to society.
“By a faction, I [mean] a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
To bring Madison’s definition into a modern context, the MAGA faction is driven by White, Christian Nationalism; environmentalists are united by the desire for eco-friendly policies; and the labor movement coalesces around worker’s rights. Essentially, there’s a faction for every significant political question. Madison sees factions as a disease that will grow and obtain a majority, whether they are large or small. He provides two ways to get rid of them:
“The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”
He then drills deeper into the notion of removing the causes of factionalism.
“There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty that is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”
Madison quickly dispels the idea of ending individual liberty (freedom of religion, speech, free assembly, etc.) as a non-starter. Then, he says the quiet part out loud.
“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government… But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.”
Madison explicitly says that the unequal distribution of property — wealth, land, the means of production — is the central source of factions throughout human history. He also says the government’s primary responsibility (“its first object”) is to ensure this unequal division remains. Madison then does what many modern elites do to protect their wealth: He claims removing the “causes” of factionalism (the unequal distribution of wealth) is impossible. Instead, he directs his efforts to control factionalism’s effects. (The emphasis in the below quote is original)
“The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.”
Indeed, ordinary people will always form factions on specific political and social questions. Even if we evenly distributed America’s wealth amongst everyone, we’d still have political issues. However, as Madison pointed out, the unequal distribution of property is the paramount issue behind which working people will unite. Like every other aristocrat interested in ensuring property remains in the hands of the few, Madison tries to claim it’s “impossible” to redistribute wealth for the better. This is nonsense. Capitalism began with the enclosure of England’s public farmlands about three hundred years before Madison penned these words. He knew such a system was not required. Yet, he either ignorantly or purposefully decided to pretend humanity could only advance by enshrining the unequal distribution of property. By total coincidence, it was the same system that made him very rich. What are the odds!?
Madison moves on to the form of government he desires. He argues that a large republic is better than a small republic or a direct democracy at curtailing the effects of factionalism, i.e., preventing the poor people from voting to free his slaves and redistribute his land. His final point is the one I find most striking.
“The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”
What Madison is describing is a plan to incite congressional gridlock. The more representatives allowed in the republic, the more interests they’ll bring, breaking the people into countless factions that bicker and squabble. Alternatively, in a small republic with fewer representatives, the common people would focus on their most pressing issue: a more equitable distribution of wealth and land. (The horror!) You’ll also notice Madison’s use of victimization language. He describes a democratic redistribution of wealth as “oppression,” just as modern right-wingers describe a 2% increase in capital gains tax as “tyranny.”
If you’re familiar with leftist thought, you’ve probably heard the saying, “The system isn’t broken; it was designed this way.” Thanks to James Madison’s Federalist #10, we can certify the validity of this claim. Both then and now, the ruling class fuels the fires of factionalism to divide the American proletariat with endless trivial issues — queer people are groomers, China is distributing fentanyl, The Cat In The Hat is woke (or anti-woke. I honestly can’t remember and it’s too stupid to look up) — until they are so divided they can’t form the political cohesion necessary to challenge the power of the capitalist aristocracy.
If there’s one nice thing to say about James Madison, at least he admitted it.
If you enjoyed this article, please like it (click the ❤️) and recommend JoeWrote to a friend in need. In Solidarity — Joe