Talk:Oligarchy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

This article does not make reference to an oligarchy as a term in economics which defines a market with high barriers to entry either because of regulation, sheer ubiquity of existing competition or high start-up costs. Some oligarchies in an economic sense are naturally occurring, like the auto-industry, because of the complexity of the end product. There is a common thread between an oligarchy in a political sense and an oligarchy in an economic sense, but they are different concepts and an oligarchy in an economic sense should be addressed; either in this entry or it's own entry. I'm not familiar enough with the standards in place at Wikipedia to make that judgement. JamesOxford — Preceding unsigned comment added by JameOxford (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the term "oligarchy" ever used in economics? The "archy" part means "to rule or to command" and typically translates to political power. Were you thinking of oligopoly, which is a relatively common term for the business world? Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine?

There are strong oligarchic structures in Ukraine. The current president of Ukraine is an Oligarch.--Huracan Min (talk)--Huracan Min (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Huracan Min, you need fairly strong, reliable, independent sources to put that into the article. Almost every ruler on the planet has been so described at one time or another. Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There are enough sources and in the German-, French- and Italianspeaking Wikipedia there are Articles about Oligarchic Structures in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics like Georgia or mentions of them in Articles about Oligarchy.--Frühlingsstern (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Just write a section about it Huracab Min, you can probably just translate the other Wiki articles in English and edit the rest like grammar.--Crossswords (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Terrible article - how are there no historical examples in the body?

The introduction in this article is promising, with a good definition of the word, features of an oligarchical system and historical context for the word. The body, on the other hand, is mostly defending the use of the term as it applies to modern American society. This topic is indisputably controversial, but there's no mention of that fact there. We then get a couple sentences on the Russian Federation, a couple examples of other potential oligarchies, and a section on fiction. Almost nothing on how aristocracies in history have been oligarchical, nothing on ancient Greece or Rome, China or Japan, the oligarchical effects of Communism (or Capitalism, frankly, since the US section doesn't really focus on it) and nothing on any monarchy in history.

Really - how can this article be this bad? I'm not generally a "someone else fix this" kind of guy, but I'm also not a subject matter expert, and as an anonymous editor I'm hesitant to take on such a project which could prove controversial and wind up as a fool's errand. If there's a way I can help, though, I'm happy to, as this article needs serious work. --2601:18C:8800:4600:C0B9:4C27:3E01:D719 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Some historical examples of oligarchies are described in this section of the article. Jarble (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Oligarchy / Aristocracy

It was linked in the Leviathan page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)#Types_of_commonwealth

"Other kind of Commonwealth there can be none: for either one, or more, or all, must have the sovereign power (which I have shown to be indivisible) entire. There be other names of government in the histories and books of policy; as tyranny and oligarchy; but they are not the names of other forms of government, but of the same forms misliked. For they that are discontented under monarchy call it tyranny; and they that are displeased with aristocracy call it oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a democracy call it anarchy, which signifies want of government; and yet I think no man believes that want of government is any new kind of government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe that the government is of one kind when they like it, and another when they mislike it or are oppressed by the governors."

- In any case, I could take issue with the fact the edit isn't concisely worded. Although it was rather late in the night. I could probably come up with something better than that to make it clear that the term Oligarchy is applied to an Aristocracy, when misliked. Thus, it's natural to apply it to the an enemy. However, even the term Aristocracy has become 'misliked' in modern usage, having negative connotations to the same effect. It's mentioned less than Oligarchy, and although speculation, it's for good reason; which is to disguise the truth about our political system being an Aristocratic Commonwealth (not Democratic). In simple terms: We call Russia an Oligarchy, but we won't even dare call the United States or Canada for which they all are (incl. Russia); Aristocracies (not in the positive sense of that term).

- As if there is a positive sense to the term 'Aristocracy' any longer... except in the public mind. In philosophical circles it's now ridiculed. As the inevitable result is rule by those who 'believe' themselves to be the best; usually of the best stock/breed/race/class. The whole concept was a fantasy to begin with. Anyways, more on this in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, about how private wealth tends to accumulate towards the interests of private individuals, even when not explicitly coordinated.

- Using Plato's example of Socrates, the formes of government are not new inventions, but a steady progression of the old, from aristocracy > timocracy > oligarchy > democracy > tyranny. Such as to say that those who 'thought' they were the best, were in fact the resulting tyrants, having consolidated power in a steady progression of formes. This same concept is applied by Nietzsche in several circumstances. Thus, history repeats itself, only in a new forme. I believe it was Marx who said "Once a tragedy, twice a farts (farce)"?

- Btw, the book Leviathan is a bit sarcastic, and quite hilarious at times. Some say it advocated for Monarchy. I used to call it a 'manual for how to become a dictator/monarch'. However, after reading it, I've realized it's all a clever deception, in order to have the book pass censors and publish. It contains many metaphors, even though Hobbes specifically argues against their usage, as a diversionary means. Such as the proverbial 'thief in the night', and the reference to Leviathan from Rev 13:4 "Who is like the Beast, who can fight against him?", which is really the King. Rev 17:9-11 states "The Beast is the King". He tried to put forward an argument for what a 'just soveraigne' would embody (itself seemingly tyrannical at times), but ultimately, that was so far detached from monarchs of the day.

- Originally posted to user's talk page.

These are Hobbes' opinions, where they belong in the article and how much weight to give to them is a matter for other's to express their opinions on. Also we prefer secondary sources here (ie others writing about Hobbes, rather than the original text). Everything has to be individually verifiable (and therefore individually reffed) on WP, we cannot treat another WP page as 'reliable'. That is a basic principle here, it is how/why the reader can trust the text (and/or challenge it if wished). Pincrete (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I just ref'd Plato/Socrates as an example of the same, don't have the time to dig up the exact lines on Nietzsche... I think you guys are trying to subvert the definitions of Aristocracy and Oligarchy. How pathetic. Especially Aristocracy; nobody knows what the word means any more - not in the SLIGHTEST - and the only thing you have to show for your 'references' is a single source? Someone writing about Plato, who obviously failed to understand Plato, or you failed to understand him... or it's been quoted out of context to 'support' the subversion here... Hilariously biased 'opinion' of an opinion there, pal. In fact, a system such as that defined by the literal translation of the term 'aristocracy' has never actually existed, not even in classical Greece; descriptions to that effect are politically motivated. It was a theoretical concept put forth by Philosophers; but in reality it's always been rule by the few, wealthy or powerful elite. Simply: Rule by those who 'believe' themselves to be the best; this is called the Aristocratic ideology, and the ideology which leads to nearly every single problem imaginable on Earth. 184.146.147.128 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Take Encyclopedia Britannica's definition: https://www.britannica.com/topic/aristocracy which describes precisely this, and more, I quote: "Because “the best” is an evaluative and subjective notion, it is difficult to distinguish aristocratic from oligarchic or timocratic governments objectively." - or - "such as the upper stratum of the Roman Catholic church", because the Church is an Aristocracy, as are all of the 'institutions' in the statement on this wiki page: nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control... In fact, I'd go so far as to call Wikipedia curators and social media moderators both Aristocracies. 184.146.147.128 (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's Socrates on the matter (Republic, Book 1: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html), essentially describing what I just defined as Aristocracy (those who 'think themselves' to be the best), although he doesn't mention Aristocracy specifically, but that's the implication, dear Polemarchus: "I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban, or some other rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of his own power, was the first to say that justice is 'doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.'" - and later Thrasymachus - "And the different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical, tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; <snip> which is the interest of the stronger." - and Socrates responds - "It is true, however, that in your definition the words 'of the stronger' are added." - Later - "Then, I said, Thrasymachus, there is no one in any rule who, in so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoins what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject or suitable to his art; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything which he says and does." (obvious sarcasm implied) - All the while, they're discussing Monarchy and Aristocracy, ending with the imagined end/purpose of an excellent or 'just monarch/ruler' (similarities to Hobbes). Although Monarchies (a type of Aristocracy), as they just described, were anything but. 184.146.147.128 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism repeatedly restored

The United States of America as an example of "minority rule" has been repeatedly restored on the argument that it's "sourced content". That's absurd IMO. I checked the history, and "the United States of America" was unsurprisingly first added by an IP to a sentence that had up to then only contained African countries, appropriately sourced to a book called Political Parties and National Integration in Tropical Africa.[1] It's obvious vandalism. Please don't again restore it as "sourced" just because there's a footnote at the end of the sentence. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

Ancient Greece

The word was originated in ancient Greece, to identify a city with a fixed number of citizens. Rhodes had six thousand citizens. Athens was twice (briefly) put under oligarchic rule, once with three thousand citizens, once with five thousand. I do not know what other cities had such constitutions. J S Ayer (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Parasitism

According to at least one commentator, parasitism may be the new social paradigm — involving class warfare and exploitation of electoral processes — of myriad and disparate countries around the world. See Kleptocracy and Elite capture.
I admit that the source doesn't use the word "oligarchy." But it describes the behavior and the social structure.
I think this belongs in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

References

If it isn't directly linked to Oligarchy, it cannot go in the article. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing current oligarchy

Australia, and probably most Western societies, is run by an intellectual oligarchy. They are the minority trying to impose a Republic on the majority. They are anti-Semitic going by the extreme bias on the ABC. [Trying to comment on WikiPedia is very difficult.] Like the Legal Profession that regulates itself internally, there won't be any academic, published articles to use as a reference here. NaumTered 23:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm Tered (talk • contribs)

Proposed merge with Business oligarch

Oligarchy seems to be a WP:DABCONCEPT so this seems better covered there Widefox; talk 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Business oligarch article seems to be fairly WP:OR, it isn't clear that the term actually exists. Any substantive content seems to relate solely to Russia and I wonder whether content should go to Russian oligarch, if it isn't already there. Pincrete (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, Russian oligarch and Ukrainian oligarchs are covered in Oligarchy summary style, so content can be split into the right one(s). Widefox; talk 16:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose – It's not accidental, that the article ‘business oligarch’ is solely about Post-Soviet tycoons. Just look at the disambiguation page: "Business oligarch, businessmen who quickly acquired huge wealth in post-Soviet states." In my opinion, this article should be renamed to a ‘post-soviet oligarchs’ to avoid further misreading.. 94.45.129.180 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is bizarre and off topic, other than the first 11 words.

Yes, the US can easily be described as an oligarchy. This is because a small number of people and incorporated entities with a lot of money use that money to influence both the writing and the enforcement of our laws. The Supreme Court even ruled, controversially, that the use of corporate money to influence politicians is protected as free speech. And the two-party duopoly makes this form of oligarchy easy to maintain. Both parties always end up writing the same laws that benefit the money that controls both parties. If the paragraph said something like this, it would make sense and be on topic.

But instead, the paragraph is a mix of nonsense and off-topic tangents. First of all, none of our political parties represent a majority of the population. Even among registered voters, the plurality are independent. On top of that, close to half of the population doesn't even vote. Supreme Court justices aren't affiliated with political parties, and Senators are apportioned two per State because the US is a federated republic. None of this has anything to do with oligarchy. It makes the reader more stupid just by reading it. And yes, there is literally a bizarre tangent about racial demographics. It even has a footnote. Maybe this belongs in a wikipedia article about far right nazi propaganda, but it certainly doesn't belong in oligarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.141.45.20 (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Americentric

"The modern United States has also been described as an oligarchy because economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." I'm sure every country on earth that's existed has had people feel the same way. It's likely the person who added this is from the US and thus just has their perspective, but it's not encyclopedic to single America out like its the center of the world and this thought among people is unique to it like the paragraph suggests. J390 (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

J390, I sympathise to a degree, but somewhere between listing every country on the planet (since everywhere has been described as an oligarchy by someone, sometime) or alternatively only mentioning past regimes (because there is nowhere on the planet in which all RS agree that it IS - as opposed to has been accused of being - an oligarchy). Somewhere between those two extremes IMO lies a balance in which sensible opinion/research identifying what about various countries has been criticised. I'm not sure that this is what is in the article at present though. Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Needs more balance

In the US section, after spending a few paragraphs basically propagandizing for the oligarchy hypothesis, there is a single sentence which makes vague reference to "some studies" that dispute this view. If by "some studies" it was meant "several studies", I agree -- no less than 6 researchers have criticized the G&P study, their conclusion, methodology, definitions, and even their basic understanding of how modern civilized democracies should operate (in addition to the references already given, see here for more).

Under no circumstance should a single academic study be given this much space, unless it represents a dominant view. The G&P study was popularized in the media, but is not so noteworthy among academics, and has been challenged several times.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Needs more balance

In the US section, after spending a few paragraphs basically propagandizing for the oligarchy hypothesis, there is a single sentence which makes vague reference to "some studies" that dispute this view. If by "some studies" it was meant "several studies", I agree -- no less than 6 researchers have criticized the G&P study, their conclusion, methodology, definitions, and even their basic understanding of how modern civilized democracies should operate (in addition to the references already given, see here for more).

Under no circumstance should a single academic study be given this much space, unless it represents a dominant view. The G&P study was popularized in the media, but is not so noteworthy among academics, and has been challenged several times.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Problems with the Overview

The wording in some of the parts of the Overview is awkward and doesn't flow freely. First is the awkward wording in the first two sentences. The first sentence says "These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, wealth, education, corporate, religious, political, or military control" = implying that oligarchy can be a characterized by wide variation, which is neat.

Then the second paragraph seems to contradict this by mentioning that most of it is comprised by families. It also is circular as it then begins to immediately mention that "inheritance is not a necessary condition of oligarchy" which puts into doubt why should the aspect of oligarchy being driven by families and inheritance was emphasized in the first place if it is not part of the operating definition.

Some parts also lack citations to support claims. The third paragraph is also problematic, as it implies that the Athenians recognized Robert Michels' "iron law of oligarchy", which shouldn't be the case and is anachronistic. Neko Cherise Sapphire Star (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Flawed Essential Definition

Locating oligarchy as negative in the very first paragraph defies appropriate use of neutral political term labels. On a spectrum of "all rule" (utter democracy) to "one rules" (utter autocracy), neither of which could ever exist purely in practice, oligarchy is everything in between: "some rule more than others." Thus, all government throughout human history can be accurately described as oligarchical, and the argument always lies in which direction its institutions and functions lean - towards the democratic or autocratic ideal end-points. This gives context to the U.S. example. U.S. respondents are likely to take issue with anything that presents the concept that there is anything undemocratic about the U.S, since its political tradition rests on the assumption of democracy as necessarily good. Interestingly, the Founders themselves had a more sophisticated view and, being attached to their hierarchies, did not think too much democracy was beneficial to the durability of a just republic. But it's a ludicrous, and typically U.S. position to think in pure black & white terms about these labels. All of the current capitalist "democracies" in the world today are more precisely understood within political science as interest group pluralisms. Since private interest groups have the lion's share of advantages over public ones, this makes it a long label for a kind of oligarchy. There are still democratic elements and protections within most of them - that's the complex nature of governance in mass societies.2600:6C54:7600:C691:318A:C443:3588:E4D2 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You do have a point, and you are free to edit the Overview, or anywhere else in the article to more accurately fit this fact or political reality and practice. After all, editing Wikipedia to reflect objectivity better is what it is all about.

However, references and links to supporting established literature should be provided to avoid WP:NOR. Neko Cherise Sapphire Star (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Dubious claim in Overview

"for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy."

This is OR.

"One of the first oligarchies in history is that of Sparta, which developed the concept alongside its rival Athens, and essentially provided a counterpoint to Athenian democracy."

I am going to remove this. No sources given. Violates WP:NOR. A better wording should be "Greek author X said that Sparta is..." or "Historian X said that blah blah blah". Neko Cherise Sapphire Star (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)