3 ms·

In USSR it seems to me that "mobs installing an absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process" is an adequate description. Were Lenin/St

In USSR it seems to me that "mobs installing an absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process" is an adequate description. Were Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky et al. oligarchs? Some politicians, in the USSR then in Russia, get rich this way, indeed, but are they the ultra-rich, and do they own a large fraction of the total wealth? I doubt so. Same for China: Mao and his followers weren't rich, and AFAIK rich Chinese are indigent compared to Emperors and their family/suit, and not very politically powerful. Juntas were composed of high-ranking military, who AFAIK weren't rich (most came from the middle-class) nor became so. Tribalism isn't oligarchic. The recent pertinent exception are banksters, however their power (albeit non-neglectable) seems rather limited and focused on some Western nations (the 'Old Core').

082349872349872 6y ago
Are we using different vocabulary? I suspect you are using oligarchy for what I would call plutocracy? From en.wiki: > "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho) 'to rule or to command'" which agrees with my head-canon terms of "how large is the selectorate?" - monarchy : "L'état, c'est moi." - oligarchy : to do something, convince the inner circle - democracy : to do something, convince an entire electorate
- natmaka 6y ago
  Isn't plutocracy is a form of oligarchy (the inner circle being rich people)? According to WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy ) "Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as meaning rule by the rich, for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy." As you wrote: > china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), I believed that your thoughts were on this "rule by the rich" track. Your definitions may not always enable to distinguish oligarchy from democracy, because the "entire electorate", without any other specification, may be an "inner circle". This, indeed, is about "how large is the selectorate?", and "democracy", here (when it comes to distinguish it from "oligarchy"), implies a pure democracy ("universal suffrage" coupled to a "direct democracy"). As no such pure democracy exists nor existed, our debate seems moot. In more than one way delegation, more precisely the "Consent of the governed" concept ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed ), may be our central concept. Moreover one may always argue that a pure democracy isn't sufficient to escape from oligarchy, because I can't see why 'Manufacturing Consent' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent ) wouldn't work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Thanks! I hadn't been aware of Michels (although I wouldn't be surprised to find out Orwell had been. Wit komante bosmang kom.) and I guess he, like Pound, demonstrates the relative ease of coopting public intellectuals via promising them a pulpit. Looking back on fascism, we tend to focus on its elites, but it appears that at the time it attracted broader support by its promise to disenfranchise[1] the traditional elites[2]. One might hope to break a chain[3] of oligarchic transmission via transparency, democratisation, and restructuring, but Gorbachev's recent experience suggests any current oligarchies would be very wary. As far as consent manufacturing goes, I'd claim Orwell's crimestop is exactly congruent to the "internalized assumptions, and self-censorship" of Chomsky et.al. (compare Girard's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimetic_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimetic_theory or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23847087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23847087 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 . The FT and Le Monde often betray strikingly different assumptions as to the immediate viability of the EU, for example.) [1] Compare the "cynical" circumlocution in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24689867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24689867 for the english word "revolt". (a geeky circumlocution: du tu tawu, "2 tau" as a verb, assuming that by that time π has been dethroned.) [2] to what degree is the G7 Barnett's "Old Core" and the E7 his "New Core"? [3] 1984 is subtler than popular culture gives it credit for. In principle, Oceania is a pure meritocracy, with inner party admission by examination. (I take Goldstein's "in principle" to mean that on the whole selective school students make it to the inner pary while comprehensive school students wind up in the outer.) PS. Ellul I will have to explore. Mogut fo to pensa ere da belek amash to bang kapawu ong? (better to think of the cosmos yet steer one's own ship) The most recent papal encyclical https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24684152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24684152 seems to echo Ellul in places...

082349872349872 6y ago

Are we using different vocabulary? I suspect you are using oligarchy for what I would call plutocracy? From en.wiki: > "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho) 'to rule or to command'" which agrees with my head-canon terms of "how large is the selectorate?" - monarchy : "L'état, c'est moi." - oligarchy : to do something, convince the inner circle - democracy : to do something, convince an entire electorate

natmaka 6y ago
Isn't plutocracy is a form of oligarchy (the inner circle being rich people)? According to WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy ) "Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as meaning rule by the rich, for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy." As you wrote: > china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), I believed that your thoughts were on this "rule by the rich" track. Your definitions may not always enable to distinguish oligarchy from democracy, because the "entire electorate", without any other specification, may be an "inner circle". This, indeed, is about "how large is the selectorate?", and "democracy", here (when it comes to distinguish it from "oligarchy"), implies a pure democracy ("universal suffrage" coupled to a "direct democracy"). As no such pure democracy exists nor existed, our debate seems moot. In more than one way delegation, more precisely the "Consent of the governed" concept ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed ), may be our central concept. Moreover one may always argue that a pure democracy isn't sufficient to escape from oligarchy, because I can't see why 'Manufacturing Consent' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent ) wouldn't work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Thanks! I hadn't been aware of Michels (although I wouldn't be surprised to find out Orwell had been. Wit komante bosmang kom.) and I guess he, like Pound, demonstrates the relative ease of coopting public intellectuals via promising them a pulpit. Looking back on fascism, we tend to focus on its elites, but it appears that at the time it attracted broader support by its promise to disenfranchise[1] the traditional elites[2]. One might hope to break a chain[3] of oligarchic transmission via transparency, democratisation, and restructuring, but Gorbachev's recent experience suggests any current oligarchies would be very wary. As far as consent manufacturing goes, I'd claim Orwell's crimestop is exactly congruent to the "internalized assumptions, and self-censorship" of Chomsky et.al. (compare Girard's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimetic_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimetic_theory or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23847087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23847087 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 . The FT and Le Monde often betray strikingly different assumptions as to the immediate viability of the EU, for example.) [1] Compare the "cynical" circumlocution in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24689867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24689867 for the english word "revolt". (a geeky circumlocution: du tu tawu, "2 tau" as a verb, assuming that by that time π has been dethroned.) [2] to what degree is the G7 Barnett's "Old Core" and the E7 his "New Core"? [3] 1984 is subtler than popular culture gives it credit for. In principle, Oceania is a pure meritocracy, with inner party admission by examination. (I take Goldstein's "in principle" to mean that on the whole selective school students make it to the inner pary while comprehensive school students wind up in the outer.) PS. Ellul I will have to explore. Mogut fo to pensa ere da belek amash to bang kapawu ong? (better to think of the cosmos yet steer one's own ship) The most recent papal encyclical https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24684152 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24684152 seems to echo Ellul in places...