6 ms·

"Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. They're not rich because they

"Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. They're not rich because they built a company and bought their way into political power (which is how many Western billionaires are made) but because they had political connections and used them to capture state assets. The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power. In the West, it can end up being the other way around, with governments becoming instruments of corporate power. Whether it makes sense to call both kinds of wealthy people "oligarchs" is up to you, I guess.

freeflight 7y ago
> "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0]. That's why the US can also be considered an oligarchy [1]. [0] https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
- clairity 7y ago
  maybe this plutocracy/oligarchy framing will break out and overtake the identity politics so dominating the culture (in the US) right now (hoping, but not hopeful). the problem is not the color of your skin but the imbalance in power caused by many, many decades (5 centuries for some!) of intentional opportunity disparity, with wealth concentration as the metric. a functioning democracy relies on dispersion of power, which is why we have separation of powers in the constitution in the first place. the other critical component of a democracy is having an informed and active citizenry. the blame for the current dysfunction lies with all citizens, not just our plutocrats and politicians (although they certainly shoulder a larger proportion). sometimes we need to lean into adversity to maintain our freedoms, rather than hoping some hero will come along and shield us from it.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Exactly. I believe the focus on identity politics, rather than class, to be a big strategic mistake by the left. The emphasis should not be on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc, because although those are serious problems that need to be tackled, they can NEVER be the priority over class, which is and remains by far the greatest source of inequality in the world (again, notwithstanding other factors also being sources of inequality). It's such a bad job that I wonder how much of it is intentional misdirection, distraction from the true issues.
    - Arbalest 7y ago
      I agree. For quite some time, I've told people that I no longer pay attention to the social left, when it is the economic side of left politics that makes the greatest difference, even to social issues. If you ensure that people who are otherwise marginalised have money, they will have enough influence through their buying power to effectively punish the classes who want them to remain marginalised.
      - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        Which is why it matters for the elites to make sure the ones who've been marginalized don't have money. Sure puts a different spin on not hiring someone for "culture fit".
      - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        I see an obvious flaw in this plan. How do you ensure the economic power of say, gay people, when they can be legally fired from their job for just being gay? When they can't even visit their dying loved ones in hospital because they're not allowed to be legally married, never mind get tax benefits or inherit pension benefits etc. How do you stop a majority from punishing them economically and punishing others who try to help them? Can you talk me through how your approach would have worked for the civil rights movement in the 60s or how the various law currently being drafted that legally prevent people from boycotting specific countries would affect your plans if used against your suggestion?
- devnulloverflow 7y ago
  > > "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. > Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0]. "Original" is a dangerous term which roywiggins shouldn't have used in this case. But roy is right about how the term got used in the Eastern European context. And while things happen in the west too, people complain as much or more billionaires who made it big as outsiders who (initially) had no such connections to political power.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Yup, I don't know about dangerous, but "original" was definitely innaccurate on my part! It's a word that came to be attached to post-Soviet kleptocrats, so that's why it ends up being used in that context and not in Western contexts, since it's taken on the meaning of wealth extracted from the state by pure cronyism.
zipwitch 7y ago
For me, I think that no matter what terms are used, the important point is that we don't automatically give "our" oligarchs, or Very High Net Worth Individuals, some sort of free pass on ethics simply because they aren't post-Soviet kleptocrats.
tormeh 7y ago
> The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power. Nobility. This concept is called nobility. History rhymes, again.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
There's an aspect of cronyism present in Russia and former soviet states that isn't present in the west. But make no mistake, we don't have free markets in the US. We have players that get large, then strong-arm their way into creating regulation preventing new players due to too high of entry costs, or regulatory capture occurs.
- darawk 7y ago
  This is a misleading way to frame it though. In the US, regulation creates speedbumps to competition. In Russia, competition will get you thrown in jail or killed.
nikanj 7y ago
"Oligarch" seems to mean "Nominated billionaire".
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Technically, "oligarchy" means rule by the few (hoi oligoi). The alternative is rule of the many (hoi polloi), also called "democracy." The distinction goes back to at least the Golden Age of Athens, in the 5th Century B.C. The Greek world was divided between cities ruled by the many and by the few, and every city had an internal struggle between elements favoring one or the other form of rule. If you favored democracy, you turned to Athens for help. Hoi oligoi turned to Sparta for help. It's a bit like the Cold War, with two superpowers with different ideologies vying for favor among the undecided states, and promoting internal factions favorable to one side or the other.
nathanvanfleet 7y ago
Oh boy, don't read up on the current president. You might be surprised.
- war1025 7y ago
  Care to elaborate?
anigbrowl 7y ago
That's an accurate history of how the word is used, but in terms of meaning it's system-neutral, being a conjunction of oligo and archon, or few + rulers. It's not like we don't have numerous oligopolies in the US.

freeflight 7y ago

> "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0]. That's why the US can also be considered an oligarchy [1]. [0] https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

clairity 7y ago
maybe this plutocracy/oligarchy framing will break out and overtake the identity politics so dominating the culture (in the US) right now (hoping, but not hopeful). the problem is not the color of your skin but the imbalance in power caused by many, many decades (5 centuries for some!) of intentional opportunity disparity, with wealth concentration as the metric. a functioning democracy relies on dispersion of power, which is why we have separation of powers in the constitution in the first place. the other critical component of a democracy is having an informed and active citizenry. the blame for the current dysfunction lies with all citizens, not just our plutocrats and politicians (although they certainly shoulder a larger proportion). sometimes we need to lean into adversity to maintain our freedoms, rather than hoping some hero will come along and shield us from it.
- andrepd 7y ago
  Exactly. I believe the focus on identity politics, rather than class, to be a big strategic mistake by the left. The emphasis should not be on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc, because although those are serious problems that need to be tackled, they can NEVER be the priority over class, which is and remains by far the greatest source of inequality in the world (again, notwithstanding other factors also being sources of inequality). It's such a bad job that I wonder how much of it is intentional misdirection, distraction from the true issues.
  - Arbalest 7y ago
    I agree. For quite some time, I've told people that I no longer pay attention to the social left, when it is the economic side of left politics that makes the greatest difference, even to social issues. If you ensure that people who are otherwise marginalised have money, they will have enough influence through their buying power to effectively punish the classes who want them to remain marginalised.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      Which is why it matters for the elites to make sure the ones who've been marginalized don't have money. Sure puts a different spin on not hiring someone for "culture fit".
    - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
      I see an obvious flaw in this plan. How do you ensure the economic power of say, gay people, when they can be legally fired from their job for just being gay? When they can't even visit their dying loved ones in hospital because they're not allowed to be legally married, never mind get tax benefits or inherit pension benefits etc. How do you stop a majority from punishing them economically and punishing others who try to help them? Can you talk me through how your approach would have worked for the civil rights movement in the 60s or how the various law currently being drafted that legally prevent people from boycotting specific countries would affect your plans if used against your suggestion?
devnulloverflow 7y ago
> > "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. > Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0]. "Original" is a dangerous term which roywiggins shouldn't have used in this case. But roy is right about how the term got used in the Eastern European context. And while things happen in the west too, people complain as much or more billionaires who made it big as outsiders who (initially) had no such connections to political power.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Yup, I don't know about dangerous, but "original" was definitely innaccurate on my part! It's a word that came to be attached to post-Soviet kleptocrats, so that's why it ends up being used in that context and not in Western contexts, since it's taken on the meaning of wealth extracted from the state by pure cronyism.

zipwitch 7y ago

For me, I think that no matter what terms are used, the important point is that we don't automatically give "our" oligarchs, or Very High Net Worth Individuals, some sort of free pass on ethics simply because they aren't post-Soviet kleptocrats.

tormeh 7y ago

> The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power. Nobility. This concept is called nobility. History rhymes, again.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

There's an aspect of cronyism present in Russia and former soviet states that isn't present in the west. But make no mistake, we don't have free markets in the US. We have players that get large, then strong-arm their way into creating regulation preventing new players due to too high of entry costs, or regulatory capture occurs.

darawk 7y ago
This is a misleading way to frame it though. In the US, regulation creates speedbumps to competition. In Russia, competition will get you thrown in jail or killed.

nikanj 7y ago

"Oligarch" seems to mean "Nominated billionaire".

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Technically, "oligarchy" means rule by the few (hoi oligoi). The alternative is rule of the many (hoi polloi), also called "democracy." The distinction goes back to at least the Golden Age of Athens, in the 5th Century B.C. The Greek world was divided between cities ruled by the many and by the few, and every city had an internal struggle between elements favoring one or the other form of rule. If you favored democracy, you turned to Athens for help. Hoi oligoi turned to Sparta for help. It's a bit like the Cold War, with two superpowers with different ideologies vying for favor among the undecided states, and promoting internal factions favorable to one side or the other.

nathanvanfleet 7y ago

Oh boy, don't read up on the current president. You might be surprised.

war1025 7y ago
Care to elaborate?

anigbrowl 7y ago

That's an accurate history of how the word is used, but in terms of meaning it's system-neutral, being a conjunction of oligo and archon, or few + rulers. It's not like we don't have numerous oligopolies in the US.