Perhaps it reflects the general attempts by radical people to develop a new approach to the modern political situation.
My dictionary of political philosophy defines oligarchy by its original Greek roots as 'rule by the few, for the few'.
Unfortunately, that could sum up almost any political system, so here are my thoughts on the matter, and i'd love a few criticisms and suggestions, even from our SWP friend 'Internationalist'. (No, only joking).
Oligarchy in the modern sense, to me suggests a form of authoritarian government, but somehow less clarified than the totalitarian kind. Capitalist in its economics, it tries to enforce a PRE -capitalist social mentality, perhaps almost feudal - medieval in tone. It tries to do so largely through social and economic means, not directly through a political party, with the result that its actual form of leadership can vary; perhaps a dictator, perhaps a formal democracy. The society it rules is divided up into many, tight, horizontal strata, but also seems to be split vertically. The lack of the centralized party (as in the totalitarian mode) means that every social function creates its own strict laws instead; family, church, banks, police, schools, and so on. Plutocratic in tone, the wealthy are more entitled in principle but also of course more free in preactice to make their own arrangements, while, obviously, the workers are the ones who gain nothing. The sheer weight of multi- institutional power penetrates right into their lives at every point, much more so than in other authoritarian modes. The state itself is extremely remote, almost invisible despite its overwhelming power.
Is Britain, or other leading modern political state, an oligarchy ? Possibly. Certainly, there are features, perhaps being formed at this moment.