Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Oligarchy is very popular nowadays

Auguste | 24.02.2002 17:22

The word 'oligarchy' is cropping up more and more on this and similar websites.

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.

Auguste

Comments

Hide the following comment

WHAT?

25.02.2002 01:33

Honestly It really does seem that a few people on this site masturbate to thier dictonaries.
SHIT!
You seem to imply that not having a centralized party makes you some how an advocate of totalitarionism. Maybee I'm confused, I'm not really sure what you're asserting. But if that's what you're saying I couldn't dissagree more. I think that governent robs us of our free will. Attacks any and all communities cause they generate independant ideas. Ideas especially of the independant variety are a threat to the coplaciency a government needs to maintain power. This remains true despite the form of government. I would agree that thier is a shift happening in radical phelosophy nowdays. I see proponants of self governmaent (ANARCHISTS)as bieng the driving force behind this change. You can imply that this is totalitarian but hey, all we're saying is put down your leaders and think for your self.
TRUE?
!HECKNO!

PORTLAND, OR, STATESWIDE

!HECKNO!