Talk:Oligarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oligarchy is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[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 would almost certainly mention modern day Russia as an oligarchy. The BBC even describe the country as such. David
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)

[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)

[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 the discussion section).

[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)

[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)

Oligarch --James S. 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, according to the OED, this only refers to the ruler of an Oligarchy. Which is why I ask. --The1exile 17:33, 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)