What Chomsky said is garbage: cf., "Noam Chomsky on Madison and Aristotle." Chomsky claimed that Aristotle’s democracy, which he identified as participatory democracy, aimed to reduce economic inequality, but that James Madison’s democracy (i.e., the founding principle of American democracy), which he identified as reduced democracy, aimed to maintain existing economic inequality. Chomsky is mistaken on both Aristotle’s and Madison’s.
Chomsky argues that both Madison and Aristotle saw the problem of democracy precisely in the same way, but that their solutions to the problem were the opposite: the morally praiseworthy solution of Aristotle and the morally reprehensible (conspiracy) solution of Madison. The problem of democracy, which Chomsky attributed to both Aristotle and Madison, is that the poor majority will violate the (property) rights of the minority, i.e., the rich. According to Chomsky, Aristotle's solution to the problem is to minimize the inequality to the direction of the welfare gov. Chomsky however does not explain how Aristotle said this welfare gov could be realized. Madison's solution, on the other hand, according to Chomsky, is to restrain the democratic principle (i.e., the government by the majority) through the installment of institutions that are independent of the democratic principle: e.g., division of power (legislative, executive and judiciary branches), the senate system (political elitism), and the judicial review (the rule of the law). To Chomsky, these institutions are to reduce democracy, that is, to take the power away from the people (i.e., from the poor majority) and to continue the deep economic inequality.
Chomsky seriously misunderstood both Aristotle's democracy and Madison's democracy. First, regarding Aristotle's democracy, it is true that Aristotle believed that the quality of democracy is deeply affected by the economic conditions of its people. To Aristotle, democracy with fat middle class (land-owning farmers during his time) is the most stable, and democracy composed of the poor majority (day laborers during his time) is the least stable. Aristotle concludes, “when there is no middle class, and the poor are excessive in number, troubles arise, and the state soon comes to an end.” (Aristotle, The Politics 1296a16-17). In nowhere, however, contrary to Chomsky’s assertion, Aristotle says that democracy with poor majority should aim to reduce economic inequality. Common sensically, if the majority are poor but have the political power, they would eliminate the economic inequality through the foreseeable means: by plundering the rich (extremely high taxation, imposition of involuntary large donations, and forceful confiscation). In other words, the most feasible way to reduce inequality is to violate the property rights of the rich minority. To Aristotle, democracy consisted of the poor majority is simply hopeless, and this kind of democracy is given way to tyranny since the poor (= the uneducated and the excitable) will be easily swayed by demagogues.
Chomsky's interpretation of Madison’s democracy is even worse. It is true that Madison believed that the government ought to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The American democracy installed by the Founding Fathers, i.e., the reduced democracy a la Chomsky, however cannot be translated into Chomsky’s conspiracy theory that the reduced democracy is a means to preserve the status quo of the deep economic inequality. The reduced democracy indeed has the effect of making democracy inefficient, as Justice Clarence Thomas states: “The Framers divided the powers of the national government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Not because they believed that this would lead always to a strong government, but because they believed it would create an inefficient government.” (http://www.jmu.edu/jmuweb/general/news2/general_200132382450.shtml) How could inefficiecy be a virtue? The reason is clear in Madison’s Federalist No. 10. It is to manage factions that could lead to a violent revolution, since Madison believed that an unchecked, unbalanced and undisciplined democracy is subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions”. In other words, an essential reason for the reduced democracy is to prevent a demagogue from inciting the majority to topple democracy and to elect a tyranny, which Plato believed to be the natural course of democracy (happened in the German democracy with Hitler).