3 ms·
If we're being serious, I'd say we're living in a hybrid system with competing sources of power: oligarchy, indirect democracy, direct democracy, guild system,
by CoastalCoder 5y ago
If we're being serious, I'd say we're living in a hybrid system with competing sources of power: oligarchy, indirect democracy, direct democracy, guild system, etc.
- tigerlily 5y agoSounds much like a plutocracy.
- emodendroket 5y agoI agree, though the relative strength of these factions seems different from a few decades ago.
- triactual 5y agoSo oligarchy-dominant?
- datavirtue 5y agoI saw a documentary on Putin's rise to power that included (others do not) coverage of how the oligarchs in Russia (seven of them) basically set or determined how Putin would govern. They wanted a democracy friendly to their interests (capitalism) as the post-Yelstin era was beginning. It was quite revealing how Putin was subject to them and it reminded me a lot of America and our leaders and how they cowar to business leaders (and Trump's association with Russians). They agreed to stay out of politics if Putin stayed out of commerce. The oligarchs then divided up various industries among themselves. In the end, it left the impression on me that Putin is just a player or a puppet who owes a lot of people.
- jimmyearlcarter 5y agoI think thats fair. I mean we live in a system of systems, and there are various forms of organization at each and every level. However, if we're being serious, the most important systems (health care, military, mass media, telecom,...) that effect each and every one of us are obviously oligarchic, formed in part by massive authoritarian constructs (modern corporations).
- meheleventyone 5y agoTo be fair you can describe most governments that way, even the totalitarian. It’s always a mix but the interesting question is the current distribution which is what I believe the OP was trying to voice.