Have we replaced one type of aristocracy with another

[Jehoshua]

Oligarchy is not inevitable. It happens because opportunities are limited and the necessary tools are taken away. And they keep it that way. Those who actually claw their way to the top are rewarded for keeping the status quo.

There is no way you can insure a benevolent and competent oligarchy, unless you are talking about Illuminati steering the world but that is a boatload of crazy. The
the bildenberg group for example, is the rich and influential meeting and talking how they can keep being rich and influential while keeping the powers of East at bay.

I would disagree with you in regards to the inevitability of an oligarchy. Rule and governance by a few with power (which is what oligarchy is) is I think inevitable in any society or organisation of significant scale, as per the iron law of oligarchy.

As to ensuring an oligarchy is benevolent there is indeed no way to guarantee that. Thus the necessity of the voting system or if you happen to not be in a democracy revolution to reset the system.

Oh and name for me one country which is not ruled by some form of oligarchy for example?

 

[Lone Cat]

There was. in Thailand 1933.

The 'monarchy' was replaced by what the revolutionaries called 'democracy' but the fact it was 'aristocracy'.. well all of them are aristocrats by then!

 

[Archbob]

I suppose all those people that are in poverty just haven't "tried hard" enough!

Or it could be because they were born in to it, and had sub-standard education, no motivation to aspire to better themselves, and don't have the links or friendships needed to move up in work.

That would make sense if the richest people didn't keep changing every few years.

Capitalism with high inheritance tax.

That really wouldn't help much. Most of today's ultra-rich weren't born Ultra-Rich.

 

[Traitorfish]

Does it matter much whether we use the term 'ruling class', 'elite', 'the wealthy', 'aristocracy', 'super rich capitalists' or any other term for that matter? We all understand what we're talking about.

If we needed to distinguish between different people at the top I'm sure we'd need to use some more proper terms, but does it matter for the discussion at hand?

It's a conceptual rather than merely terminological issue, I would say. An "aristocracy" is typically concienved of a a formally or informally exclusive caste with a hereditary monopoly on political-economic power, which, at least as far as I can see, has certain implications as to exactly what form criticisms of this monopoly takes, specifically, that it represents a lack of modernity, rather than being- as in the socialist critique- the very embodiment of capitalist modernity. This necessarilly dictates the approach which we take to the issue, and so, yes, is overwhelmingly pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Because the modern aristo is still acting like the classical aristo. Building huge and ostentatious mansions on large estates, lobbying the government for rights and privileges so that their decedents can continue in power and wealth no matter how useless each of them might be. Always fighting for a bigger slice of the pie rather that working for it or trying to grow the pie as a whole.

That seems a fairly superficial comparison, though, because it doesn't take into account the vast differences between the economic form taken by the old aristocracy and the modern capitalist class: the property forms they embody, how they extract value from the process of production, how this value is disposed of, and so on. GeneriCorp and the Compte de Generique may both have engaged in some questionable behaviour, but it does not seem immediately obvious to me that we should criticise the former in the terms of an existing criticism of the latter, rather than constructing a seperate, specific critique that takes into account the distinct- in my view fundamentally so- character of this new class.

Oh and name for me one country which is not ruled by some form of oligarchy for example?

I have a room full of people named "Fred". Find me one of them that is not named "Fred". Can't do it? Good, we've concluded that all people, everywhere, are named "Fred".

 

[Cutlass]

Why make up new terms to confuse the issue when the old terms are sufficient?

 

[Yeekim]

I have a room full of people named "Fred". Find me one of them that is not named "Fred". Can't do it? Good, we've concluded that all people, everywhere, are named "Fred".

You are saying there could be countries not ruled by oligarchies on other planets elsewhere?

 

[kochman]

Not in American history. And not where there is a well functioning modern economy.

Source?
You don't recall the age of the Rockefellers, etc...

 

[Lone Wolf]

That seems a fairly superficial comparison, though, because it doesn't take into account the vast differences between the economic form taken by the old aristocracy and the modern capitalist class:

"Aristocracy" is a nice emotional word for the people to be enraged at. Nobody needs nuance. Yeah, "Bourgeois" can be an emotionally charged world, too, but you don't want to sound like some kind of communist, do you?

 

[GenMarshall]

The capitalists are the new aristocrats of the modern era.

Sadly.

 

[kochman]

The capitalists are the new aristocrats of the modern era.

Sadly.

This makes no sense at all, can you please clarify your point?

 

[Tahuti]

The public policies are pretty much what perpetuates the inequality and the elite control them with their wealth. Our society doesn't really value intellect or knowledge except as a way to more wealth. If there was an intellectual elite, they could easily share their wealth without diminishing it since information is never lost. (sans black holes)

Public policies are driven by societal values, and vice versa is almost never true. This is because societal values generally only change if society changes the way it thinks, and practically the only way to do so through politics is to impose totalitarianism. Societies usually change by technological advances and changes in social conditions, however.

 

[Dachs]

This is because societal values generally only change if society changes the way it thinks, and practically the only way to do so through politics is to impose totalitarianism.

That's a very novel way to think of things.

 

[GamezRule]

This makes no sense at all, can you please clarify your point?

Define Capitalist.

 

[Kozmos]

Public policies are driven by societal values, and vice versa is almost never true. This is because societal values generally only change if society changes the way it thinks, and practically the only way to do so through politics is to impose totalitarianism. Societies usually change by technological advances and changes in social conditions, however.

Society changes what it thinks all the time depending on what are they being fed by the media. It is why FOX news keep running, if you repeat something enough times your brain remembers it and the brain likes those well-founded synapses because it is a lazy bastard. We don't really ever change the way we think, those in charge or whoever wants to be in charge just changes their methods. Communism is a curious thing, somewhat rational in origin but driven by so much emotion. Brute force is one way, yes but I disagree it is the only way through politics. Rather it is the back and forth of Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment ways of thinking. Hopefully soon enough the scales will tip back to Enlightenment.

 

[Archbob]

That's a very novel way to think of things.

He's pretty much right though.

Society has changed its views many times in history, its just they've never changed their views that society should have classes.

I personally believe that we, as a species, simply weren't biologically made to really be egalitarian and no amount of social engineering is going to change that.

 

[kiwitt]

I personally believe that we, as a species, simply weren't biologically made to really be egalitarian and no amount of social engineering is going to change that.

You are probably right.

There always need to be leaders, however it is the huge differences now between the top and bottom compared to what it was a few decades ago.

A CEO can get $100,000,000 p.a. these days and a decade or so back, I thought $2,000,000 p.a. was excessive. Its definitely not inflation as the average annual pay rises to these types of execs has been in double figures for a long time now. In contrast the employee has probably moved up about 20-30% in that time or conversely he is just as likely to have gone backwards, with redundancies and layoffs and had to take lesser and lesser jobs with less benefits each time. ( Note: some, like myself can move forward.)

 

[civ_king]

Distributism is the answer

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that the only way to keep money (and power) from accumulating with a few (orat the top) is to impose restrictions on the accumulation of wealth. Human nature fosters a hierarchical structure in what we do and people have to collectively oppose such structures by imposing some sort of redistribution. When the rich and powerful get too rich and powerful, the only way to "fix" the problem tends to be violent and nasty. Technology is the new spoiler in the game because it can be a strong tool to keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful.

 

[Archbob]

I think that the only way to keep money (and power) from accumulating with a few (orat the top) is to impose restrictions on the accumulation of wealth. Human nature fosters a hierarchical structure in what we do and people have to collectively oppose such structures by imposing some sort of redistribution.

See, now this is where it all falls apart, since Human nature fosters a hierarchical structure in what we do, people are going to collectively oppose it. The majority of people want the chance to be on top some day and when they are, they don't want restrictions on them.

 

[Jehoshua]

I have a room full of people named "Fred". Find me one of them that is not named "Fred". Can't do it? Good, we've concluded that all people, everywhere, are named "Fred".

ah, but I could then go to another room elsewhere to search for the man not named Fred since there is more than just a single room.

In regards to my question however you can't just go elsewhere to determine if a society of any significant size is devoid of oligarchy, its a general question encompassing the sum total of humanity.

Either way my point was that in all large-scale societies some form of oligarchy has been universally applied and to this day no nation state is genuinely devoid of an oligarchy. Ergo the evidence on the ground favours the iron law.