Does power becoming concentrated into too few hands concern you?

[DireWolfSpirit]

A definition-

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical (relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist). Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which the exact term is plutocracy. However, oligarchy is not always rule by the wealthy, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by either wealth or by bloodlines as in a monarchy.

What some scholars and writers are noting-

United States

Further information: Income inequality in the United States § Impact on democracy and society

Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as oligarchic in nature.[10][11] Simon Johnson wrote that "the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent," a structure which he delineated as being the "most advanced" in the world.[12] Jeffrey A. Winters wrote that "oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay."[13] Bernie Sanders (I-VT) opined in a 2010 The Nation article that an "upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country."[14] The top 1% in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[15] In 2011, according to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[16][17][18][19]

French economist Thomas Piketty states in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."[20]

A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University, and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, was released in April 2014,[21] which stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." It also suggested that "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of "oligarchy" in which the wealthiest citizens even in a "civil oligarchy" like the United States dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.[22]

Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it; that is, economic elites and interest groups are influential.[23]

The quotes are from wiki,

I haven't made a thesis on this subject or anything .

But have a small aphrehension over whether this trend towards more and more

resources concentrating into a smaller, narrower group could be for the better?

It seems the antitrust laws and general history argues that this trend eventually

chokes off free markets.

Do any of you feel this is a negative trend,

a slippery slope so to speak?

[Wise Fool]

It should generally concern everyone, I think. Whether that power is wealth or political power or both depends on one's perspectives and priorities. Of course inequality of power and/or wealth is bad for both freedom of market and freedom from government.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Well according to the above quoted Politfact where it states that as of 2011,

the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

At 3.80 million square miles (9.85 million km2)[5] and with over 320 million people, the United States is the world's fourth-largest country by total area and third-largest by population.

Put another way,

the 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than 160 million Americans combined.

And the trend is increasing towards more concentration into this minuscule group.

400 people,

just slightly larger than my High School graduating class,

and I grew up in what , population wise, was considered a village.

So this very tiny group, having more wealth than 160 million Americans combined,

seems amazing, but not in a healthy way.

[Malik Ambar]

But isn't it inevitable ? I mean, I don't say it's right, but over a period eventually one group does take control and sort of becomes a power block.

[Lummel]

heh - "free markets" !

A couple of things spring to mind, firstly with the development of a sophisticated economy over a territorial block well linked by transport and communication, supported by law it is possible for larger and larger conglomerations to emerge and these will wield a proportional amount of power. It seems pretty natural as a citizen with one vote and limited access to information to be concerned about the implications of that.

However there's a kind of naive idea embedded in that notion that we don't need to worry about weaker concentrations of power yet from time to time cases arise which show how effectively small numbers of people or families can close down even the operation of the police and courts (ie organisations that we expect to work along strictly bureaucratic lines rather than personal ones).

To my mind Dunbar's number is a useful tool in thinking about the operations of power at all levels of society. When you are getting to figures like four hundred individuals then according to Dunbar's number you're getting close to a number of people that can function as a cohesive group, and certainly in the style of five degrees of Kevin Bacon a number of people who are densely interconnected, separated by only a couple of phone calls at most.

Naturally most of us will have to be excluded from that group. That's an issue in any society, but one which will feel more acute in a country over one hundred million strong than in one with a couple of million inhabitants.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

Isn't a representative democracy an "oligarchy" by definition? The power of government is concentrated in the hands of 536 people in the US Executive and Legislative branches for a nation of over 300 million people.

[DireWolfSpirit]

DWS,

Isn't a representative democracy an "oligarchy" by definition? The power of government is concentrated in the hands of 536 people in the US Executive and Legislative branches for a nation of over 300 million people.

I'm not entirely sure.

Here's what Aristotle wrote about that question-

"The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Wherever the rulers, whether they be a minority or a majority, owe their power to wealth, that is an oligarchy. Wherever the poor rule, that is a democracy. "

I think the question we can ask then is,

do we really have representive democracy at this point?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

Where are you pulling that quote from, and which translation? Because Aristotle also said this:

1281b: 23-36: What authority should belong to the multitude (plethos) of free citizens, who are not rich and have not a single claim to excellence? They should not have a share in the highest offices because their injustice and imprudence would make this unsafe. States are unstable, however, that are filled with those who have no share of political power and are poor. Therefore, it is left for them to share in the deliberative and judicial functions of government [namely, the assembly and the courts]. For when they have all come together, their perception [of political issues] is sufficient, and when they are mixed with the better citizens, they benefit city-states.

Aristotle favored divided government where various factions had power to balance each other's competing interests. The US Constitution's variety of "checks and balances" are quite Aristitlian in their conception.

That said Artistotle was writing with the conception of the "Polis" (city-state) as the polity around which government was organized. The US and most Nation-States are several orders of magnitude larger than any State Aristotle saw as just. Therefore, I ask again whether a government where 536 people are imbuged with the power of government over more than 300 million is not an Oligarchy as Aristolte would have conceved it?

[DireWolfSpirit]

Ser Scott try googling this-

Democracy in the Politics of Aristotle

Thomas R. Martin, with Neel Smith & Jennifer F.Stuart, edition of July 26, 2003

it's page 8 of 13.

Let me know if you have any trouble finding it .

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

That where I pulled the quote I listed above. Please see my edit.

Aristotle's ideal polity incorprated elements of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy, as balances against each other. I think you are mistaken when you imply a value judgment on the wealthy in your quote above.

And I still think the US has devolved to Oligarchy not based on economic power but based upon power over the vast multitudes being concentrated into the hands of very very few people.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I don't think anything I've said implies value judgements over wealth Sir Scott.

The last line of the definition I posted clearly states that oligarchy is not always rule by the wealthy,

but can simply be a group of priviledge, not tied to wealth or bloodlines as in a monarchy.

That doesn't mean I believe the very rich aren't also quite

powerful and influential.

They have great resources to

affect every thing from think tanks, advertising, campaigns, donations and so forth.

It seems counter intuitive to suggest the 400 wealthiest aren't also a major

part of the countries power structure.

The issue many have is how small the concentration is and how the trend is

getting narrower and less inclusive.

[Altherion]

Isn't a representative democracy an "oligarchy" by definition? The power of government is concentrated in the hands of 536 people in the US Executive and Legislative branches for a nation of over 300 million people.

No, not necessarily. Ideally, the representatives would be just that: individuals who represent their constituents, not oligarchs. When they cease to do that, the constituents would simply vote them out and that would be the end of that. The problem is not the number of representatives, it's the fact that concentration of resources skews the relative value of various types of constituents. The support of a multimillionaire is worth a lot more than that of an individual making minimum wage. Furthermore, because the multimillionaires control the media, certain types of ideas are almost completely off the table as far as a federal representative is concerned (e.g. with the sole exception of Senator Sanders, "socialist" is an insult among the American political class).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

I don't think anything I've said implies value judgements over wealth Sir Scott.

The last line of the definition I posted clearly states that oligarchy is not always rule by the wealthy,

but can simply be a group of priviledge, not tied to wealth or bloodlines as in a monarchy.

That doesn't mean I believe the very rich aren't also quite

powerful and influential.

They have great resources to

affect every thing from think tanks, advertising, campaigns, donations and so forth.

It seems counter intuitive to suggest the 400 wealthiest aren't also a major

part of the countries power structure.

The issue many have is how small the concentration is and how the trend is

getting narrower and less inclusive.

Okay, how would you correct this power concentration?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I read somewhere that Athenians thought that elections were inherently oligarchic. I can't source it, but it makes sense since you can't get a elected without having a lot more money, connections, and (hopefully) talent than the average person. By that definition, the closest thing to a truly democratic institution in the US is a jury.

[DireWolfSpirit]

DWS,

Okay, how would you correct this power concentration?

I think Americans recognizing that it's not an ideal state and

gathering in groups, maybe even forums or townhall meetings,

and discussing the issue collectively is

always a healthy process...... Wait.......

that's sort of what we're doing 🌇 hmmmm?

I suppose it starts with acknowledging the issue.

The collective minds , ideas or activism of groups may be one counter to

compete with a power or lobby with great resource advantages.

Organizing could be key.

Those would be ideas off the top of my head.

I am not sure what the future holds though,

according to what some are writing , this ( the dominance) level of oligarchical

behavior has only taken foothold in recent years, at least this pervasive a level of it.

Oh another thought,

I try to encourage people to watch, listen and read from

independent media when possible.

The oligarchy is nowhere more pervasive than

In the lockstep, drumbeating propaganda the monopolized

networks spoonfeed the great unwashed......Did you see that

blue, white, gold, black dress Yahoo wants to talk to us about?

Thank goodness they were manning the 4th estate!

[Larry of the Lawn]

I for one would have no problem ceding all power to our dear leader The Aspect-Emperor. Of coures, you can't really cede what's his to begin with.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

Who, here, thinks the US (or any State for that matter) is the "ideal"? I think most of us, here, have our eyes open as to the failabilty of any human enterprise or organization.

[jarl the climber]

DWS,

Isn't a representative democracy an "oligarchy" by definition? The power of government is concentrated in the hands of 536 people in the US Executive and Legislative branches for a nation of over 300 million people.

Is that really an accurate staement? What about all the governors, state legislatures, judges, bueracrats and appointees in the executive branch. Then you have all the folks out of office like uniuon officials, donors, money guys, etc. I don't think we can say that power is concentrated in 500 or so people.

One thing that might make the federal government more responsive is to increase the size of the House. Early in the Republic you had thirty or forty thousand people for every represenative. Right now its like one member for every 800,000 or so.Not sure how the House would work with 8,000 or 10,000 members but it would be interesting to see.

From what I remember from political science, Aristotle was very influental on the writers of the Constitution. Th writers of the Constituion did want a balanced government, not a democracy. The House was supposed to be the democratic element of it. Having them represent so many citizens a peice is a legit concern.

[DireWolfSpirit]

This is really good ,

if you get a chance watch this-

Casino Jackhttp://youtu.be/GOOUjnGDqso

[Castel]

I think Americans recognizing that it's not an ideal state and

gathering in groups, maybe even forums or townhall meetings,

and discussing the issue collectively is

always a health process...... Wait.......

thats sort of what we're doing hmmmm?

I suppose it starts with acknowledging the issue.

The collective minds , ideas or activism of groups may be one counter to

compete with a power or lobby with great resource advantages.

Organizing could be key.

Those would be ideas off the top of my head,

I am not sure what the future holds though,

according to what some are writing , this ( the dominance) level of oligarchical

behavior has only taken foothold in recent years, at least this pervasive a level of it.

Oh another thought,

I try to encourage people to watch, listen and read from

independent media when possible.

The oligarchy is nowhere more pervasive than

In the lockstep, drumbeating propaganda the monopolized

networks spoonfeed the great unwashed......Did you see that

blue, white, gold, black dress Yahoo wants to talk to us about?

Thank goodness they were manning the 4th estate!

So...not much.