Oligarchies......

[Zeke]

Have you noticed all societies are Oligarchies, or at least decend into them latter. Most countries are dominated by rich people, who ever holds the most cash and are the most popular rule society and the culture. Sure we have a Democracy where people vote but I bet my life on it that somewhere each day someone in the World bribes a judge or is above the law because they are part of an Oligarchy of infuential rich people.

 

Here are the important questions to ask yourself,

 

1. Do you believe all societies will evedenually become Oligarchies (Rule by a small group of men and woman with the most power and wealth)

 

2. Do you think the United States is becoming an Oligarchy/is an Oligarchy???

 

3. Do you think that the Oligarchies will always become dictatorships like they did in the fall of the Roman Republic???

 

Intresting quote to think about as well,

 

"This how liberty dies, with thunderous applause!"

 

ZEKE

[Demson]

1) Depends on the avaibility of ICT. Oligarchy is a form of management. Management is essentially a trick to communicate more easily. In a group of 10, you can rely on teamwork. In a group of hundred, you'll need management. Why? We simply don't have the ability to communicate effectively. The more advanced or ICT becomes, the less management we'll need.

 

2) The US is an oligarchy. Not only that, it's a mild aristocracy. Most, if not all western republics/democraties are.

 

3) Of course they dictate, that's what management does. The question is - do they dictate in the best interest of everybody involved or will dictate according to self interest? The bit of democracy we have (elections) is supposed to ensure the former. However, our bureaucracy (at least in Europe) is becoming increasingly powerful (once again). If our government officials can't be hold accountable, how can they act responsible?

 

Oligarchy doesn't neccesarily mean management by the rich. It's not neccearily evil either. It's simply government/management by the few.

 

If they govern in self-interest, that's when the problems arise... Resulting in events such as the October Revolution.

 

It's interesting to note the paralels between the invention and widespread use of the printing press, telegrams, telecommunication etc. and the development of republics and representative democracy. Taking in mind the internet and weblogs, I wonder what develop,ment the future holds for us.

[Ursus]

There is no better example of an oligarchy than the Communist Party, who tried to eliminate distinctions of wealth and power. ;-) Oligarchy is not inherently a function of capitalism or wealth.

 

 

1. In every society some people seem more comfortable leading, while others seem more comfortable following. Most people are followers in my experience. They seek not equality and self-rule, but benevolent masters to follow.

 

This is probably horrendously politically incorrect, but it's what I see for myself. I might betray myself as some sort of quasi-conservative or something, but I think it is the natural order of things. I think pure democracy is chaotic and dangerous. There will always be leaders. The only questions are how those leaders are chosen and what kind of powers they are granted by their followers.

 

 

2. Wasn

[Zeke]

Ok Oligarchies don't nessarially have to be rich (The Communist Parties). But in a way the statment is true most societies are rules by either a dictator or a group of people with the most influenece. I could say Athens was not an Oligarchy but it was. Though the direct Democracy concept allowed any free man to run for office? And it futher limited the power of the rich in Athens.

 

Zeke

 

Zeke

[Moonlapse]

Funny how power/status/rule/etc is an almost inescapable constant. Humans are so chaotic because they are caught between these animal survival tools (the insatiable urge to procreate, for example) and the human survival tool (rational mind)

 

How does a society transition between the two? If survival of the 'fittest' applied up until now, what is the mechanism of further progress?

 

Sorry, just thinking aloud.

[Jimbow]

what is the mechanism of further progress?

 

Cybernetics?

 

Jim.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree with most of what Ursus said. Most people are conformists, are more servile than empathetic, and are thus prepared to commit the worst evils in obedience to authority.

 

The famous experiments by Stanley Milgram, replicated in hundreds of cities across the globe, should convince everyone of this conclusion. If you're not familiar with the experiments, they went like this.

 

First, a naive subject would enter the lab and be introduced to another person and the experimenter. Next, the experimenter would explain that the study was on the effects of punishment on learning. The subjects would draw slips of paper--one reading

[Pertinax]

The Chinese experiments in controlling and brainwashing American POWs in Korea add further weight to MPCs remarks- if I recall they found that by removing an "active" element from the captured men (roughly 10% if I recall) the remaining prisoners were rendered most docile and controllable. Add to this the commonplace that in combat a few combatants do the majority of killing ( have a loook at Dave Grossman's books-On Killing is an excellent social commentary on violence in civilian and military contexts) though many men are prepared to risk their necks (but not kill if it can be avoided).

 

and I remember Jung dividing human groups into three: one third conformable to any given status quo (accepting the rationale of any imposed dogma):one third conformable but not engaged ( dont care what dogma is promulgated but conform to survive) : active adults ( actual mature individuals capable of change, adaptation and with an ability to act!).

Edited December 27, 2005 by Pertinax

[Pantagathus]

I think Polybius documented this quite well:

 

"But as soon as the people got leaders, they cooperated with them against the dynasty for the reasons I have mentioned; and then kingship and despotism were alike entirely abolished, and aristocracy once more began to revive and start afresh. For in their immediate gratitude to those who had deposed the despots, the people employed them as leaders, and entrusted their interests to them; who, looking upon this charge at first as a great privilege, made the public advantage their chief concern, and conducted all kinds of business, public or private, with diligence and caution. But when the sons of these men received the same position of authority from their fathers,--having had no experience of misfortunes, and none at all of civil equality and freedom of speech, but having been bred up from the first under the shadow of their fathers' authority and lofty position,--some of them gave themselves up with passion to avarice and unscrupulous love of money, others to drinking and the boundless debaucheries which accompanies it, and others to the violation of women or the forcible appropriation of boys; and so they turned an aristocracy into an oligarchy. But it was not long before they roused in the minds of the people the same feelings as before; and their fall therefore was very like the disaster which befell the tyrants." - Polybius 6.8

 

"For no sooner had the knowledge of the jealousy and hatred existing in the citizens against them emboldened some one to oppose the government by word or deed, than he was sure to find the whole people ready and prepared to take his side. Having then got rid of these rulers by assassination or exile, they do not venture to set up a king again, being still in terror of the injustice to which this led before; nor dare they intrust the common interests again to more than one, considering the recent example of their misconduct: and therefore, as the only sound hope left them is that which depends upon themselves, they are driven to take refuge in that; and so changed the constitution from an oligarchy to a democracy, and took upon themselves the superintendence and charge of the state. And as long as any survive who have had experience of oligarchical supremacy and domination, they regard their present constitution as a blessing, and hold equality and freedom as of the utmost value. But as soon as a new generation has arisen, and the democracy has descended to their children's children, long association weakens their value for equality and freedom, and some seek to become more powerful than the ordinary citizens; and the most liable to this temptation are the rich. So when they begin to be fond of office, and find themselves unable to obtain it by their own unassisted efforts and their own merits, they ruin their estates, while enticing and corrupting the common people in every possible way. By which means when, in their senseless mania for reputation, they have made the populace ready and greedy to receive bribes, the virtue of democracy is destroyed, and it is transformed into a government of violence and the strong hand. For the mob, habituated to feed at the expense of others, and to have its hopes of a livelihood in the property of its neighbours, as soon as it has got a leader sufficiently ambitious and daring, being excluded by poverty from the sweets of civil honours, produces a reign of mere violence. Then come tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments, redivisions of land; until, after losing all trace of civilisation, it has once more found a master and a despot.

 

This is the regular cycle of constitutional revolutions, and the natural order in which constitutions change, are transformed, and return again to their original stage. If a man have a clear grasp of these principles he may perhaps make a mistake as to the dates at which this or that will happen to a particular constitution; but he will rarely be entirely mistaken as to the stage of growth or decay at which it has arrived, or as to the point at which it will undergo some revolutionary change. However, it is in the case of the Roman constitution that this method of inquiry will most fully teach us its formation, its growth, and zenith, as well as the changes awaiting it in the future; for this, if any constitution ever did, owed, as I said just now, its original foundation and growth to natural causes, and to natural causes will owe its decay. My subsequent narrative will be the best illustration of what I say." - Polybius 6.9

Edited December 27, 2005 by Pantagathus

[Virgil61]

...

 

1. In every society some people seem more comfortable leading, while others seem more comfortable following. Most people are followers in my experience. They seek not equality and self-rule, but benevolent masters to follow.

...

Old thread, new thought.

 

An interesting point I'd add here based on my experience as an NCO in the Army. Some people are 'natural' leaders, only a few really, but the vast majority of those without 'natural' talent labeled as followers can be trained to acquire leadership attributes and function very competently as leaders. It says a lot about the unfullfilled potential human beings walk around with.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Intresting quote to think about as well,

 

"This how liberty dies, with thunderous applause!"

 

ZEKE

Why do I sense the influence of Star Wars. Is it or is it that Padme Amidala from Star Wars said that line in the third movie during the scene whre the Chancellor becomes the Emperor in the senate. Well, anyways I though that line was really interesting too.

 

As for Oligarchies, I doubt it. But if it happens, I can only hope its for the better cause. For example, were the US economy to crash(unlikely) and hope of revival are non-existance, you've gotta find a leader. Out of desperation, people won't notice that they are being possibly ruled by a dictator out of manipulation like the Emperor from Star Wars. They won't care really as long as they are cared for, somewhat like the concept of feudalism. I think feudalism serves oligarchy best.

[M. Porcius Cato]

the vast majority of those without 'natural' talent labeled as followers can be trained to acquire leadership attributes and function very competently as leaders. It says a lot about the unfullfilled potential human beings walk around with.

 

But can they be trained equally well to disobey authority when that authority is morally wrong? Rising to command a Gestapo goon-squad is one thing, rising to oppose one is something else entirely.

[Germanicus]

To the major issue, then--the important question isn't whether a government is controlled by relatively few or by relatively many of its citizens (heck, most people don't even bother to vote),

 

Agreed, democracy is an elected oligarchy.

 

whether the power of the state is governed by objective laws that protect human freedom.

 

While I agree with it, I think there are two main problems with the "Some people are leaders, some people are followers" sentiment. One is that those who have the drive and the finance to become a leader in a modern democracy, don't do it for the "greater good", they invariably are, or become, self serving. By their very nature they are also totally convinced of the "rightness" of their opinions and subsequent actions. The other thing that I notice, more so in Australia than I suppose the US, is that once a party gets in control of a legislative body, they can just change or abolish any laws that protect human freedom. Australia is one of, if not the only democracy in the western world with no right to freedom of speech enshrined in law, or a Bill of Rights as it were, scary. I guess a redeeming feature is that we are required by law to vote or we get fined.

[M. Porcius Cato]

whether the power of the state is governed by objective laws that protect human freedom.

While I agree with it, I think there are two main problems with the "Some people are leaders, some people are followers" sentiment. One is that those who have the drive and the finance to become a leader in a modern democracy, don't do it for the "greater good", they invariably are, or become, self serving. By their very nature they are also totally convinced of the "rightness" of their opinions and subsequent actions.

 

The more I think about it, the less I like the claim, "some people are leaders, some people are followers." It's true, but not qute exact. Some people are quite obviously both sadistic, low-level leaders and fawningly servile followers of still higher status men (Antony strikes me as a good example of this). Probably most of the middle officers making up any two-bit totalitarian regime fall under this description.

 

The fundamental distinction, then, isn't between leaders and followers, but between followers and those who refuse to follow. That's all Milgram's experiments show. Virgil's point that leadership can be trained apparently without reducing overall obedience leads to a corollary conclusion: Some of those who refuse to follow can learn to be leaders--e.g., of an anti-authoritarian resistance; some of those who follow can learn to be leaders too--e.g., as subordinate officers.

 

I think you're right Germanicus that every would-be dictator announces himself as a friend of the common good. After all, if the dictator said "I'm just out for myself", no one would give him power. The lesson I take from this may sound perverse, but I frankly trust an ordinary person more when he says "I live for myself" than when he says "I live for others". The person who SAYS he's living for himself is more likely an epicurean (and interesting) than a power-luster. The person who SAYS he's living for others is more likely a power-luster than someone honest (anyone truly living for others should go to the blood bank and donate all his blood--after all, there is always someone in need).