Talk:Oligarchy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia for Schools | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| WikiProject Politics | (Rated Stub-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Philosophy | (Rated Stub-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] South Africa / Russia
South Africa, while undoubtedly an oligarchy, constitutes a special case due to its being based upon racism. An even better example might be Russia, which seems to have substituted a type of "mob-oligarchy" for its former autocracy. I didn't change any of the information on South Africa because it's still technically correct, even though a special case. F. Lee Horn
- You're quite right, FLH. But it gets even worse: Within white South Africa, some families have dominated high-status occupations like law and the church for decades. And today, a large part of the new black political elite in South Africa belongs to the old black aristocracy: Mandela himself is Pondo royalty. That doesn't call his status as a great democrat into question, but it shows the potential for an oligarchy-within-an-oligarchy to develop. I don't know enough about Russia today to comment on that. - clasqm
-
- I certainly can't argue with your familiarity with South Africa, now can I? :) As to the current situation in Russia, I'm not really sure *anyone* has enough information, including (especially?) Russians! Nice to make your acquaintence. F. Lee Horn
-
- Your addition to the article is a good one, IMHO. F. Lee Horn
- Isn't it a albocracy? I mean the word for an oligarchy of whites, albocracy? Dustin Asby 11:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Ya I think that's what it's called but it is awesome if your included in one of the few. -the dang gnome 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dang gnome (talk • contribs)
Calling South Africa an oligarchy is stretching it. Whites as a whole were too numerous to be an oligarchy, because it must have included numerous poor whites who didn't exert much control over society. If a few white families controlled the country, or even controlled the white "sphere" in the country, those would be an oligarchy. Were whites in the American South an oligarchy? No. Were the aristocratic families and plantation owners in the South an oligarchy? Maybe. Sluggoster (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As for Russia, the word "oligarch" is a cynical Russian joke, like several of their other favorite words borrowed from Western languages and endowed with a quirky meaning: huligan, mafia, fashist (anybody I don't like), bandit, nomenklatura (the people who matter, the "Who's Who"). There's no formal oligarchy in Russia. There's a group of businessmen who have so much power they're considered a de facto oligarchy. They got their power by acquiring state industries for cheap during the lawless days after the Soviet regime fell, and appropriated real estate through intimidation. Sluggoster (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have an objection to the very mention of South Africa in the article on oligarchy. As has been pointed out above, it's a poor and inappropriate example at best. What raises my hackles though is the opportunistic "racist white bashing" tone of the item. Perhaps a little history revision would be in order for those of you out there who simply don't have any conception whatsoever of the historical facts as contemporaneously recorded - by whites of course - seeing as black people in Southern Africa had no written language of their own (a reality which should be difficult to blame on the whites). But before I go about deleting the reference to South Africa in the article, I am open to a discussion. JohnSkliros (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] United States / slippery slope
Can we say America is an Oligarchy? Wouter Schut
-
- OF course its an oligarchy. While the 2 major parties may disagree on some relatively benign issues, they stand for the same things essentially. It's a combined oligarchy of corporate media, elites in corporations, and the elites in the 2 parties. Serious contenders for important seats must be boosted by the media and the donations from the corporations to win and must hold a favorable position in the media. Look at the derailment of the campaigns of the candidates for president who were denied most access to the debates. There isn't a lot of discussion on the important issues and the political slide of those in control is rather small. Both parties stand for a continued 'war on terror' though they describe their reasons or reasons to not leave in different ways. I think America is much of a secret oligarchy, since most people think its a democracy because there are two parties, but really they are much the same. Whereas in Russia there's only one party so its a more open oligarchy. —Dave
-
- I don't believe we can accurately say that the United States is an oligarchy. The US government is a 2 party system. This fact negates a true oligarchy since in a true oligarchy all leaders in the government must always agree on policy. Oligarchies tend to fall apart if this doesn't occur. The US is an oligarchy however in the sense that the rich and powerful in congress and elsewhere will protect themselves and each other to the last breath regardless of ideological differences (at least they will if they don't have a chip on their shoulder). There are different degrees of oligarchy. OPEC and Microsoft are very good commercial examples. Most true oligarchies must be headed by VERY like minded people who share a common bond (i.e. wealth, power, military fortitude, etc.) and the government must be kept deliberately small so as to minimize any chance of dissension among its members. J. Tindall
-
-
- The Early United States government resembled an oligarchy, but I doubt that most people would understand this reference. 72.128.106.136 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Ergh. Well, there is a slippery slope which wasn't touched upon in the article; precisely how small does the participatory have to be to qualify as an oligarchy. Consider that roughly 100 million people voted in the United States presidential election, 2000; this, in a country of 300 million! There are maybe 140-150 mio. people with suffrage; everyone else (foreigners, children, the mentally disabled), is shut out of the system (on top of that, consider all of the other peoples elsewhere who are/were "administered" by the US (Iraq, etc.) without a say in US foreign affairs). Now, whereas we would call 45% suffrage a far cry from universal suffrage, we still have to make the call when precisely oligarchy kicks in: at 10%? 20%? What?
- The article mentions "an élite" making the decisions; however, anyone under 18, resident aliens, and felons are certainly justified in thinking of the voting class as being an élite.
- Now, I am unlikely to classify the US as an oligarchy in this article, but I do think the slippery slope issue needs to be addressed. samwaltz 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
It certainly could be said that the Iowa and New Hampshire voting in the presidential primary before every other state is a form of oligarchy. 76.104.132.228 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The United States is a Federal Republic lead by a President. Brittany Ka (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The ruling class in the US is too large and diverse to be an oligarchy. There are two main schools of thought (conservative and liberal) which pursue radically different policies when in power. The fact that centrists like the Clintons sometimes agree with Republicans on a few issues like NAFTA and the Iraq war does not change the fact that overall they have a different agenda and give money to different people. Saying there's a small group of people with common interests who control the country (the definition of an oligarchy) is just not true. Sluggoster (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire section discussing the US as an oligarchy is entirely inappropriate without references from reputable sources. Wikipedia shouldn't be a venue for individual editors to voice their opinions. Create a blog for that, if you must. Make references to respectable experts or drop the section. -jplflyer
Despite the fact that the United States has a 2 party system and elected officials I believe that it fits the description of an oligarchy provided in the first sentence of the article because most of the people in high positions of power (ie presidents etc.) are related. That's not an opinion, its a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.71.2 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the majority of these posts - capitalism is inherently incompatible with the given definition of an oligarchy. The capitalist system is fundamentally based on choice, whereas an oligarchy implies a system where a small group of people rule and retain power against a population's will. While it is arguable that the U.S. economy is not truly capitalist in nature, our government and economy are still more based upon freewill and choice than this passage lets on. This reference and quote are both obvious bias by the author and should be removed. Expanding and focusing on Russia or apartheid South Africa would be more appropriate. - Watchful Greek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchful Greek (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current part about the U.S. as an oligarchy, is not encyclopedic in nature. I do not believe that it conveys a generally recognized understanding of an oligarchy There certainly are valid academic arguments that the Early Republic was a timocracy, or that in antebellum America the South and then Federal government was controlled by a Plantocracy (Both of which can overlap with the definition of oligarchy). However, referring to the modern U.S. as an oligarchy is largely a pejorative use of the term (which correct or not should have it’s own section). Furthermore, a Marxist writer should generally not be considered an unbiased source on the U.S form of government (as Marxist theory and the theory of a constitutional federal democratic republic are not necessarily compatible).
I welcome discussion on these points, but I am seriously considering a massive edit of this article.--24.250.196.34 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
From, RH Ralls: Good points.
I will add that quoting a Marxist in defining oligarchy will never produce anything resembling accuracy; you just get a typical Marxist Fallacy. The United States has never been an oligarchy: the Marxist Sophist typically renders a fact of simple reality as though it were a legal feature of the state, which is the standard Marxist Fallacy here appearing. In the United States a complete pauper (Abraham Lincoln, for one) can by his own merits and energy go from a rail-splitter to President. No act of law limits the members of government to any one class or group and never has under the United States. The United States was a Representative Republic, and at least to a titular extent still is today. The Dual Representation established by the original Constitution was not an oligarchic establishment, either, since there was no legal limit as to whom the government of a state could appoint to the Senate to represent it in the Federal Legislature. An oligarchy would be enshrined by law, not by an out-growth of human reality. The quote of the Marxist Sophist should be expunged for its vacuous stupidity and as nothing more than the inane propaganda it is. It is a discredit to Wikipedia that erodes its authority by bringing up legitimate questions as to both its accuracy and objectivity.
[edit] Sometimes Oligarchy means 'New Money'
In contradistinction to Aristocracy (as old money), or so I thought. Cursory glance reveal that Aristotle's political typology does not seem to be pertinent to this as I initially mentioned, so my mistake (I did not though edit the article, as I wasn't quite certain of this, and only noted this here in
[edit] Discrepancies
The sentance, "Oligarchy is a form of government where most political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence)," is bordering on tautology. Dustin Asby 10:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] lamens terms
What does it mean???
- You probably mean "layman's terms", although your version might soon be adopted by hack3rz. A layman, technically, is a person who is not a cleric (an employee of the church). More generally, it is a person who does not have specialist knowledge of the subject under discussion. "Layman's terms" are therefore words that a non-specialist can understand. --Heron 16:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No question: the bit about "wealth" puts the USA squarely into this slot: OLIGARCHY. So how can their politicians pretend to "bring democracy to the rest of the world" !? hpbo
[edit] Sparta
I've had a comment via email on this article, suggesting that it should mention Sparta as a unique form of an oligarchy (a "democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy"). I've invited the correspondent to this page, but if anyone knows more about this perhaps they could consider adding it. -- sannse (talk) 13:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Should be removed; "Democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy" is nonsense in any language, and Aristotle expressly distinguishes Sparta from the oligarchies, because, among other things, the election of the Ephors [sic, in English] was a popular or democratic element. Septentrionalis 22:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Excluding non member of a state from voting does not make you an oligarchy. The reasoning given in the article is nonsense, so I am taking Sparta off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.71.221 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] What word?
The last sentence reads: "A form of this word has entered Latin American Spanish and Portuguese from the French. Its use has been modified there to include governmental and military officials, both those who are effective and those who for whom a job was made, besides the rich" (emphasis added). Is the word, oligarchy? If so, why not say so. Also, what forms of the word were entered in the other languages? I want details!!!! This is very confusing.
- I also find that sentence confusing. Lennart.larsen 09:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What is a member of an Oligarchy?
Is the word used Oligrat? After all we have Democrat, Plutocrat, but this is a different form of word. --The1exile 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As opposed to who else? The governed? --James S. 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, the governed members of an Oligarchy, the people who have no power but are still part of this system. --The1exile 20:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] 1984
1984 is not mentioned among the fictional oligarchies although the movement of engsoc (excuse mistakes) is refered to as a "collective oligarchy" any comments? (82.46.12.240 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
1984 is abook based on total government control and I see that we, the United States is headed in that direction. With the Patriots Act, and other types of surveilance, what is going to stop the government from spying on us all the time? (JKD-)
[edit] Historical Oligarchies
What are a few historical Oligarchies and how were they brought down? Arnie Gov 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Malaysia
The brief sentence citing Malaysia having an 'illusory' democracy while in reality being an oligarchy is an unfounded assertion, not a statement of fact. (noisms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.91.122.5 (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Corporate oligarchy
The Corporate oligarchy article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. As it is a type of oligarchy, it should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would say I agree. The lack of information could let it be a section in Oligarchy, and as you said, it is a type of Oligarchy. 71.13.237.224 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Corporatism also stands as a merging candidate. While "corporate oligarchy" does obviously refer to an oligarchic entity, the emphasis (in my opinion) seems to be on its corporatist nature. Alternatively, corporate oligarchy could have a place in both articles. DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Daily Show
Not for the article (non-notable), just for your pleasure.
The Carpetbagger - Twin Cities, Worthy of Topping the Last Act - NYTimes.com - [At The Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.]: "... Although everyone is all smiles — “The Daily Show” has a billboard near the airport that says “Welcome, Rich White Oligarchs” — there are some sharp edges on the welcome mat. ..."
^_^ 96.50.20.58 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oligarchy vs. monarchy
This section has an obvious error in the first line, which needs to be corrected. I think I can infer the spirit of the section, however - Power can move from a single person/family (monarchy) to a cabal of nobles or businessmen (oligarchy), using the Magna Carta as an example. This power shift could be further expanded upon, showing a transfer of power to either a majority (democracy) or a breakdown of power (anarchy) if examples of those could be found.
216.254.28.72 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The original content is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oligarchy&oldid=240967312 and was vandalized and reverted several times. I know little of the subject matter, but that's the most recent version i can find with complete sentances in, so i've restored it. Do feel free to improve it if it's incorrect or lacking, as i say i'm not an expert, just trying to tidy up a bit. Provider uk (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! 216.254.28.72 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
When I read this section, I thought the following paragraph, although inherently interesting, was either out of place altogether or lacking a suitable link from the preceding material - "In an aristocracy, a small group of wealthy or socially prominent citizens control the government. Members of this high social class claim to be, or are considered by others to be superior to the other people because of family ties, social rank, wealth, or religious affiliation. The word "aristocracy" comes from the Greek term meaning rule by the best. Many aristocrats have inherited titles of nobility such as duke or baron." I notice it was absent in the version quoted on this page as "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oligarchy&oldid=240967312" Mediatenz (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2009
[edit] What's the difference between Oligarchy and Timocracy?
It seems that a Timocracy might? allow anyone to become part of the elite if they can make enough money, but that an Oligarchy would restrict that?
~ender 2008-11-29 12:01:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)
- Not exactly. Allow me to quote Timocracy: "Constitutional theory defines a timocracy as either: 1. a state where only property owners may participate in government; 2. a government where rulers are selected and perpetuated based on the degree of honor they hold relative to others in their society, peers and the ruling class."
- Let's use the first instance in an example. If only property owners can participate in government, you can exclude groups disallowed (either by law or implicitly) from government participation. In the case of the early United States, this would include black slaves and women, both of whom had to chip away at the system and earn the right to vote. This system was not necessarily codified as law, but was implicitly defined by the honor rank of women and colored people in that society, enforced by the higher ranking group, white men.
- Oligarchy, on the other hand, does not necessarily make these distinctions. In fact, the article on Wikipedia openly states that power in an oligarchy does not necessarily translate into wealth. The Catholic Church, though substantially wealthy, is an oligarchy based upon loyalty to God, and this system would still exist even if the church were flat broke. England's royal family is exclusive to noble blood, though not necessarily to any honor system, as evidenced by its multiple ruling matriarchs even in times when women were considered second class.
- Finally, timocracy is not necessarily rule by the few. If the majority of the population in a timocracy owns property, or is of sufficient social status, then the "many" are in a position to participate in government as they please.
- Hope this helps! DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kazakhstan
In Kazakhstan one rich family controls whole country during 18 years and family is Nazarbaev's family. Every member of this family is oligarch, they divided economy of Kazakhstan among each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.54.66 (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipediarchy
Doesn't Wikipedia itself take the form of an oligarchy sometimes?... :) Nikolai35 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is unavoidable. 78.88.117.116 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to official Wikipedia content, there is no cabal. Neil Clancy 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- No; actually, it's an oligarhy :) Bigbluefish (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
