Iron Law of Oligarchy(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Iron Law of Oligarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
11 comments
Why is this theory limited to just democracies? Isn’t it the case that an elite will appear in any group of people?
The author was part of an institution in Facist Italy that espoused the superhumanism of these “elites” over the little people as one of their core tenants:
“The psychological difference that sets elites apart is that they have personal resources, for instance intelligence and skills, and a vested interest in the government; whilst the rest are incompetent and do not have the capabilities to govern themselves, the elite are resourceful and strive to make the government work.”
Wild life path really. Started as a socialist and syndicalist, and then stuff happened (waving hands) and he joined the Mussolini fascists and died before he could see what fascism would do to Europe. Looks like he got more involved with eugenics and elite theory and blue pilled himself to accept fascism as the solution to the problems with democracy and socialism he focused on earlier in his life.
I'm impressed by the author's gall in naming his idea an "iron law", without bothering to test how true it is. I suppose it'd get talked about a lot less if he had named it simply "Michel's Conjecture of Oligarchy".
>since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy
This right here is ripe for disruption. No longer is there any technical barrier to a direct democracy. If we can move billions of wealth in minutes, we can have billions of votes in the same amount of time.
This right here is ripe for disruption. No longer is there any technical barrier to a direct democracy. If we can move billions of wealth in minutes, we can have billions of votes in the same amount of time.
oligarchy appears to be the natural state of affairs in most human systems and, despite that, tends not to be discussed much (instead we hear about democracy, fascism, communism, etc)
i think the best solution to this dynamic is many smaller units (states, companies, etc) so that oligarchies compete with one another, but this requires a type of system design and a vibe largely out of favor in todays world (e.g. secession & trust-busting for governments & corporations, respectively)
i think the best solution to this dynamic is many smaller units (states, companies, etc) so that oligarchies compete with one another, but this requires a type of system design and a vibe largely out of favor in todays world (e.g. secession & trust-busting for governments & corporations, respectively)
That sounds like it would lead to Corpo-feudalism, aka techno-feudalism. Some billionaires are working to accomplish this.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/mouthbreathing-machiavellis
https://thenetworkstate.com/
https://thebaffler.com/latest/mouthbreathing-machiavellis
https://thenetworkstate.com/
techno/corpo-fuedalism is just another term for techno-oligarchy, which is what we are getting/have gotten anyway
billionares love mass democracy because it is dominated by media and turns into one-dollar-one-vote, centralizing the government in an easily controllable power center
the solution is to have many centers of power and to distribute the corruption, which remains constant
billionares love mass democracy because it is dominated by media and turns into one-dollar-one-vote, centralizing the government in an easily controllable power center
the solution is to have many centers of power and to distribute the corruption, which remains constant
>distribute the corruption, which remains constant
Why do you think the corruption would remain constant? When you have more centers of power, each tiny oligarchy is fighting for their piece of the pie. If they don't do something unethical, some other group might outcompete them. Meanwhile if you have more concentrated power, those in charge can think long term and won't be immediately threatened by the competition.
Why do you think the corruption would remain constant? When you have more centers of power, each tiny oligarchy is fighting for their piece of the pie. If they don't do something unethical, some other group might outcompete them. Meanwhile if you have more concentrated power, those in charge can think long term and won't be immediately threatened by the competition.
just a guess
[0] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm