Ed Huntress wrote:

This is the definition of a "select" group of people, in this case by
Britannica:

"Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it
was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. In this sense,
oligarchy is a debased form of aristocracy, which denotes government by the
few in which power is vested in the best individuals. Most classic
oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively
from a ruling caste -- a hereditary social grouping that is set apart from
the rest of society by religion, kinship, economic status, prestige, or even
language. Such elites tend to exercise power in the interests of their own
class..."

We may have a republic or representative democracy in theory, but the
above definition sounds a lot like what we have now in practice.

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

This is the definition of a "select" group of people, in this case by
Britannica:

"Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when
it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. In this sense,
oligarchy is a debased form of aristocracy, which denotes government by
the few in which power is vested in the best individuals. Most classic
oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited
exclusively from a ruling caste -- a hereditary social grouping that is
set apart from the rest of society by religion, kinship, economic status,
prestige, or even language. Such elites tend to exercise power in the
interests of their own class..."

We may have a republic or representative democracy in theory, but the
above definition sounds a lot like what we have now in practice.

David

You may be interested in Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy." It's a debate
that's raged in political science for a century. In fact, it goes back to
the ancient Greeks. But the current thinking is that these terms make sense
only in terms of organization, not in terms of results. If you fall into the
latter, everything turns to soup.

So it's a distinction that only makes sense if you confine it to structures
of government -- to the sources of power, and to the presence of formal
rules for exclusion. The US has no such formal rules. What we *do* have is
the same human habits, and the same tendencies of wealth to perpetuate its
own power, that have existed everywhere, for all time.

Some people would argue that we're approaching a corporatist state. That
requires a new definition of "corporatist," because it has a somewhat
different meaning in classical political thought. But most people know
what's meant by the term as it's used today. And, FWIW, I agree with them,
and with you.

--
Ed Huntress

We may have a republic or representative democracy in theory, but the
above definition sounds a lot like what we have now in practice.

David

Some people would argue that we're approaching a corporatist state. That
requires a new definition of "corporatist," because it has a somewhat
different meaning in classical political thought. But most people know
what's meant by the term as it's used today. And, FWIW, I agree with them,
and with you.


What the U.S. has become over the years does provide us with plenty of
grist for the debate mill. Is is a democracy? Is it not? Is it an
oligarchy, or not? Is it a corporate state or is it a fascist military
state? Good questions. From the way the country is structured it's
clearly a democracy, a representative one with many levels and many
degrees of democratic participation. But what's the difference between
the de jure and the de facto? In my view, we have moved into a condition
of oligarchy. This is because while we go through a lot of motions that
make it appear the country is doing things in a democratic way the truth
is the wants of the population are rarely heeded by those who are in
power. The small group who make up the oligarchy are all the interests
that are making the government do what they want. Be it the military,
the corporations, the rich, or whatever groups you choose, they comprise
the oligarchy and they control what is decided in the country, not the
people. They few are deciding things in this country, not the many. At
least I think so. If I'm right that plainly fits the definition of an
oligarchy, rule by the few. Too bad isn't it? It would have been nice to
live in a real democracy where the government followed the will of the
people, not the few. As Franklin told us, he gave us a republic, if we
can keep it. Apparently, we could not.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

We may have a republic or representative democracy in theory, but the
above definition sounds a lot like what we have now in practice.

David

Some people would argue that we're approaching a corporatist state. That
requires a new definition of "corporatist," because it has a somewhat
different meaning in classical political thought. But most people know
what's meant by the term as it's used today. And, FWIW, I agree with
them, and with you.


What the U.S. has become over the years does provide us with plenty of
grist for the debate mill. Is is a democracy? Is it not? Is it an
oligarchy, or not? Is it a corporate state or is it a fascist military
state? Good questions. From the way the country is structured it's clearly
a democracy, a representative one with many levels and many degrees of
democratic participation. But what's the difference between the de jure
and the de facto? In my view, we have moved into a condition of oligarchy.
This is because while we go through a lot of motions that make it appear
the country is doing things in a democratic way the truth is the wants of
the population are rarely heeded by those who are in power. The small
group who make up the oligarchy are all the interests that are making the
government do what they want. Be it the military, the corporations, the
rich, or whatever groups you choose, they comprise the oligarchy and they
control what is decided in the country, not the people. They few are
deciding things in this country, not the many. At least I think so. If I'm
right that plainly fits the definition of an oligarchy, rule by the few.
Too bad isn't it? It would have been nice to live in a real democracy
where the government followed the will of the people, not the few. As
Franklin told us, he gave us a republic, if we can keep it. Apparently, we
could not.

Hawke

Jeez, I thought I just shook off this ungainly thread. g As that reference
I posted earlier says, keeping the terms straight -- and one's thinking
about them -- requires distinguishing between structures and outcomes. If a
country has a representative democracy but the people don't exercise their
authority, whether it's because they're vulnerable to the arguments of
corporate interests, or because they're completely passive, waiting for
their candidates to be presented to them on a silver platter, it's still a
representative democracy. As long as they're eligible to vote and their vote
caries equal weight to the votes of others, the system is fundamentally
democratic.

Now, if you want to argue that entrenched interests have acquired the power
to overwhelm the system, that's another issue. You don't help matters by
calling it an "oligarchy." That just confuses the structure of the system
with the way people happen to vote.

--
Ed Huntress

What the U.S. has become over the years does provide us with plenty of
grist for the debate mill. Is is a democracy? Is it not? Is it an
oligarchy, or not? Is it a corporate state or is it a fascist military
state? Good questions. From the way the country is structured it's clearly
a democracy, a representative one with many levels and many degrees of
democratic participation. But what's the difference between the de jure
and the de facto? In my view, we have moved into a condition of oligarchy.
This is because while we go through a lot of motions that make it appear
the country is doing things in a democratic way the truth is the wants of
the population are rarely heeded by those who are in power. The small
group who make up the oligarchy are all the interests that are making the
government do what they want. Be it the military, the corporations, the
rich, or whatever groups you choose, they comprise the oligarchy and they
control what is decided in the country, not the people. They few are
deciding things in this country, not the many. At least I think so. If I'm
right that plainly fits the definition of an oligarchy, rule by the few.
Too bad isn't it? It would have been nice to live in a real democracy
where the government followed the will of the people, not the few. As
Franklin told us, he gave us a republic, if we can keep it. Apparently, we
could not.

Hawke

Jeez, I thought I just shook off this ungainly thread. g As that reference
I posted earlier says, keeping the terms straight -- and one's thinking
about them -- requires distinguishing between structures and outcomes. If a
country has a representative democracy but the people don't exercise their
authority, whether it's because they're vulnerable to the arguments of
corporate interests, or because they're completely passive, waiting for
their candidates to be presented to them on a silver platter, it's still a
representative democracy. As long as they're eligible to vote and their vote
caries equal weight to the votes of others, the system is fundamentally
democratic.

Now, if you want to argue that entrenched interests have acquired the power
to overwhelm the system, that's another issue. You don't help matters by
calling it an "oligarchy." That just confuses the structure of the system
with the way people happen to vote.



I think that is what I was getting at. By all the rules that determine
what kind of government we have there's no doubt we have a democratic
country, a republic, or a representative democracy, whatever you want to
call it. In theory that is how it is supposed to work too. But if that
is all just a sham and the system actually works exactly like an
oligarchy doesn't that mean it really is an oligarchy? Like some say,
just asking. It seems what we have is one thing structurally and
something different in outcome.

Back in the day when Athens was in control of the Greek city-states they
set up governments in other cities in their area that were ostensibly
democratic but in reality were nothing but puppet regimes. So it wasn't
a matter of what they were supposed to be but what they really were. If
what we have going here is the same kind of thing then maybe we should
stop calling our country a democracy and admit that is has turned into
an oligarchy, at least in practice. It's just something I've been
thinking about. I lean towards calling a thing by what it is in
operation not by what it is in theory. Then what if it acts one way one
time and the other way another? Confused yet?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

What the U.S. has become over the years does provide us with plenty of
grist for the debate mill. Is is a democracy? Is it not? Is it an
oligarchy, or not? Is it a corporate state or is it a fascist military
state? Good questions. From the way the country is structured it's
clearly a democracy, a representative one with many levels and many
degrees of democratic participation. But what's the difference between
the de jure and the de facto? In my view, we have moved into a condition
of oligarchy. This is because while we go through a lot of motions that
make it appear the country is doing things in a democratic way the truth
is the wants of the population are rarely heeded by those who are in
power. The small group who make up the oligarchy are all the interests
that are making the government do what they want. Be it the military,
the corporations, the rich, or whatever groups you choose, they comprise
the oligarchy and they control what is decided in the country, not the
people. They few are deciding things in this country, not the many. At
least I think so. If I'm right that plainly fits the definition of an
oligarchy, rule by the few. Too bad isn't it? It would have been nice to
live in a real democracy where the government followed the will of the
people, not the few. As Franklin told us, he gave us a republic, if we
can keep it. Apparently, we could not.

Hawke

Jeez, I thought I just shook off this ungainly thread. g As that
reference I posted earlier says, keeping the terms straight -- and one's
thinking about them -- requires distinguishing between structures and
outcomes. If a country has a representative democracy but the people
don't exercise their authority, whether it's because they're vulnerable
to the arguments of corporate interests, or because they're completely
passive, waiting for their candidates to be presented to them on a silver
platter, it's still a representative democracy. As long as they're
eligible to vote and their vote caries equal weight to the votes of
others, the system is fundamentally democratic.

Now, if you want to argue that entrenched interests have acquired the
power to overwhelm the system, that's another issue. You don't help
matters by calling it an "oligarchy." That just confuses the structure of
the system with the way people happen to vote.



I think that is what I was getting at. By all the rules that determine
what kind of government we have there's no doubt we have a democratic
country, a republic, or a representative democracy, whatever you want to
call it. In theory that is how it is supposed to work too. But if that is
all just a sham and the system actually works exactly like an oligarchy
doesn't that mean it really is an oligarchy? Like some say, just asking.
It seems what we have is one thing structurally and something different in
outcome.

Back in the day when Athens was in control of the Greek city-states they
set up governments in other cities in their area that were ostensibly
democratic but in reality were nothing but puppet regimes. So it wasn't a
matter of what they were supposed to be but what they really were. If what
we have going here is the same kind of thing then maybe we should stop
calling our country a democracy and admit that is has turned into an
oligarchy, at least in practice. It's just something I've been thinking
about. I lean towards calling a thing by what it is in operation not by
what it is in theory. Then what if it acts one way one time and the other
way another? Confused yet?

Hawke

Let's say the issue you're interested in is how to make our country behave
in a way that fits your idea of a democratic state. You have certain ideas
about what that is -- and no one agrees with you. You're going to have a
jaundiced idea of the system. That's you.

It's expected that it's going to be messy and no one will be fully
satisfied. That's democracy for you. But there are two big problems with
what's going on now, IMO, and they depend upon social attitudes and our
ability to find common ground. First, it's finding common ground. g That's
become a huge problem, with the political polarization that's going on.
Second, it's breaking out of the grip of entrenched interests. Entire books
have been written about how a society that has no violent upheavals for long
periods of time develops entrenched, powerful special interests. That's us.

Without some radical changes in attitude, we won't overpower the special
interests, from hedge funds to oil behemoths, from public educational
institutions to farmers in the Midwest. Overcoming those interests is a core
part of the "radical centrist" agenda. They're the most likely source of
viable ideas to do something about it, IMO.

Otherwise, things are likely to drag on as they are, with ever-declining
efficiency and energy in the economy. That's what I worry about most -- not
Gunner's "great cull," but a great ennui.

--
Ed Huntress