Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mendez-Esteban & readers,

This distinction between corporatism and neo-corporatism has some importance in contemporary political analysis, especially in international comparisons. I have argued that corporatist or neo-corporatist forms may work better in smaller more homogeneous societies, but that they are less suited to larger more heterogeneous societies. Its implausible to transfer social and political models between societies of different sizes and degrees of internal social complexity; and the attempt often rests on comparatively superficial resemblances.

The basic problem is that corporatist forms tend to become excessively rigid, because they emphasize grouping people together and (official or quasi-official) representation on the basis of economic interests. This contrasts with traditional geographical representation which crosses diverse economic interests within a given geographic area or electoral district. In deciding on representation, the people within a geographic district are able to debate and sort out economic issues locally. The representatives they select locally are more likely to reflect the range of economic interests within the area.

We have been discussing a certain suggestive analogy:

Aristotelian aristocracy is to oligarchy

as

contemporary political elitism is to X.

I think it simply short-circuits the comparison and the examination of the analogy to immediately substitute "oligarchy" for X. The allegation or accusation of "oligarchy" is easy enough--it appears in many varieties of conspiracy theory. The proof is, of course, somewhat more difficult. But we need to ask, for instance, how ancient aristocracy differs from contemporary political elitism. One aspect of this is the important contemporary role of institutions --as contrasted with great families.

The idea of corporatism certainly suggests high-level coordination among economic interests. But even here, the coordination may or may not be dominated by special interests. That is a danger of which we should be aware. In consequence, I have posed the question of the prevalence of "oligarchic structures," --those that may contribute to establishing or maintaining --let us say--"economic elite domination." In this connection, I have also suggested the examination of the traditional theme of the "Iron law of oligarchy." But the theme is yet to be taken up on this thread. In fact, there are important counter-examples to the so-called "Iron law," and by examining the exceptions one may gain some insight into the social and political factors which contribute to the plausibility of the "Iron law." Though "oligarchy" is not inevitable, it is important to understand and avoid those "oligarchic structures" which make it more likely.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests. The idea is that when each group performs its designated function, society will function harmoniously — like a human body (corpus) from which its name derives.

about your article the oligarchy in our time exist everywhere in our institutions in our society in our work even in our family

we respect those people who have and hold the things we respect like these people in our work we respect like this people in our families because they have apower of money

with all sorry thats the true in all of the world the poor people have nothing but the eyes of God the wealth people have everything with all support

with great regret@

Dear Mohammed,

Yes, I agree with you that in our time the poor people have nothing and the wealth people have everything with all support. Why such a change had occured from the time of Aristotle? However in his time the slaves were not considered as citizen and their situation was worse, I think, than for the poors to day and they were very numerous.

Daniel

yes we sees all over the world in your country alot of them they havent get any help from ur government or any human institutions exactly like my country

believe me this time for only to the wealthy people@

Do you think that governments are treating poor people like slaves in Aristotle time? Are these governments made of rich men who consider only rich men as potential listeners, and omit all other ones?

Perhaps another way to look at it would be to view each type of government on a spectrum in the shape of a triangle to account for situations through which one type gradually changes into another.

You seem Justin to consider that a change in government is gradual. I wonder if this is frequently verified as this change is often a "coup d'état". However this change may occur in a democratic government when one of his member tries to impose a more oligarchic one through progressive changes. Do you agree with this opinion?.

I agree that change can be abrupt or gradual. Understanding the possibility of gradual transitions in addition to abrupt ones may be helpful in interpreting cases that appear to be hybrids of two types of government. This may allow us to build from the foundation Aristotle has provided and account more for variations.

Thank you Justin for your answer. You seem to think that Aristotle has provided all forms of government that can exist through the world. From his time did we not discover other forms of societies where the government may be different from them? Can there be societies without a government?

Those are good questions. I understand that there can be different forms of government than Aristotle's three types, or an anarchic form of government that could be argued as not being a government at all. I envision the triangle spectrum idea I mentioned above as being a first step to build upon Aristotle. I think this model could be valuable because it accounts for the ways in which one form of government can transition into another, be it abruptly or gradually. We can add more forms of government to the model, which would change the shape. I have attached a model I created to help envision what adding an additional type of government- I chose anarchy- would make the model change. Types could keep being added as they are identified and the shape would change further.

An important question to consider is could a new form of government that we seek to add to the model be identified rather as a hybrid of two types that is currently in a gradual transition process? This could help us determine how many types to add to the model.

Also, what if a form of government exhibits attributes of three or more types evenly? Would this be possible, and if so, would it require the model to become three-dimensional?

To add an additional layer of complexity, Aristotle mentions that each form of government has a sort of alternate type, such as tyranny for monarchy and oligarchy for aristocracy. The model may require each vertex to be a spectrum of its own. I have attached another file with alternate forms that may help visualize this.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Aristotle's distinctions among monarchy, oligarchy and democracy function as a kind of preliminary division of the subject-matter; and I think it is not plausible to view them as appearing in his work without qualification. As you note, he brings up problems in the three-way division himself--and this serves to introduce further refinements.

Perhaps the most important of the refinements concerns Aristotle's conception of "polity" --sometimes translated as "constitutional government," and this does not fit neatly into the three-way division. One might look at this concept as a matter of a balance between rule of the many and rule of the few.

It is also important to notice that Aristotle, in his critical attention to "democracy," has in mind something which we might better call "extreme democracy" since the idea is that the many (poor) rule in their own self-interest and neglecting the common good. Though he regards this "extreme democracy" as an unstable system, he also says that it is more tolerable than oligarchy --in which the few rule in their own self-interest and neglecting the common good.

Notice also Aristotle's conception of "aristocracy," and that he holds that oligarchy is a degenerate form of aristocracy --rule by "the best." This concept is perhaps most directly comparable to contemporary conceptions of elitism or elite rule. But given the Aristotelian preference for "polity," it would appear that the best way to keep "aristocracy" from degenerating into oligarchy is to institute the needed balance he recommends between the power of the "few" and the power of the "many."

Given that modern "democracies" include, in fact, many counter-majoritarian elements, they might also be termed "constitutional republics," and this notion seems to accord with Aristotle's preference for "polity."

H.G. Callaway

It should be added that in the above concepts: democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy or monarchy, no mention is made about the quality of the government; for example a good government, in benefit of all or in the target of common good would be possible with all the described manners. The main distinction between them is who takes the power: people, some, or the best

In this regards Aristotle also mention the egoism in government or bad governments or tyrannies described by him as follows, regardless of who takes control, although mainly focused on monarchies:

The best-known definition of tyranny comes from Aristotle’s Politics: “Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself, and who rules over subjects all equal or superior to himself to suit his own interest and not theirs, can only be exercising a tyranny.” Aristotle presents tyranny in a very negative light, as a form of monarchy that has deviated from the ideal, and by listing the characteristics of the tyrant—he comes to power by force, has a bodyguard of foreigners to protect him, and rules over unwilling subjects—Aristotle suggests that a tyrant was always a violent usurper. Peisistratus, tyrant of Athens, is a classic example; he made three attempts to seize power, finally succeeding in a military coup in 546 BCE by using forces from outside, and ruled for 30 years.

Obviously tyrannies are more difficult when democracy exist, because it is more difficult that a wide number of people are tyrannes, all of them.

Opposite this is quite more probable in case of monarchies or oligarchies. Currently there exist the "elite" (some kind of oligarchy) tyranny.

Thus, democracy offers more guaranty of good government, if people are informed and qualified.

Dear Justin, Howard and Carlos,

Thank you very much for your very interesting and illustrative discussions of the different forms a government can take. I agree with your complements given to the three forms given by Aristotle. In fact he considers like you deviations to these forms in his Politics, III, 7:

Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.

Also Aristotle gives also some indications about the quality of a government, when he wrote for example:

Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens.

and:

The argument seems to show that, whether in oligarchies or in democracies, the number of the governing body, whether the greater number, as in a democracy,or the smaller number, as in an oligarchy, is an accident due to the fact that the rich everywhere are few, and the poor numerous. But if so, there is a misapprehension of the causes of the difference between them. For the real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth.

But he did not clearly say that democracy offers more guaranty of good government, if people are informed and qualified. The last information seems to me the more important one, as in many democracies of our time, the elected people are very badly informed and qualified.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Regarding the Aristotelian trichotomies, of rule by "the one," "the few," and "the many," including both the positive variations, Kingship, aristocracy, and polity; and the negative variations, tyranny, oligarchy and (extreme) democracy, it seems important to observe that they may exist in degrees.

My approach to this is to analyze out contributing factors of each form, looking at the applications of the concepts in empirical terms to see what sorts of practices or conceptual elements contribute to each. For example, if we view oligarchy, in Aristotelian terms, as rule by the wealthy few in their own self interest, and ignoring the common good, then we want to know how this has been accomplished or how it might be accomplished. The means are relevant to clear empirical applications of the term "oligarchy." Lacking attention to details in somewhat this fashion, the danger is that the terms are simply thrown around in polemical and partisan style. But it is a serious question, not merely a marker of partisan divisions, to ask, e.g., "Is contemporary Russia an oligarchy?" Might it be instead an emerging tyranny? Or, might it be that the Russian state has now brought the Russian oligarchs under control? One must take note of President Putin's popularity, and the persistence of electoral practices.

Again, is contemporary "elitism" or, say, "elite economic domination," more like Aristotelian aristocracy, or is it more like Aristotelian oligarchy? Many have claimed that "elite economic domination" amounts to oligarchy. But in spite of that, the forms presently attributed would seem to be consistent with electoral democracy, the persistence of a robust legal system, popular protests and opposition, emerging populism, etc. Some empirically oriented detailing of the Aristotelian concepts seem to be required --and a good deal of attention to the typical means employed in the establishment and persistence of the Aristotelian regimes.

One of the most important Aristotelian contributions would seem to be the idea of a needed balance between rule by the few and rule by the many. The idea has been praised down the centuries and widely adopted or adapted. But again, we might benefit a proper understanding of the related issues and problems by some more detailed account of the needed balance.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Here is an illustration of the view that contemporary Russia constitutes an oligarchy. Notice the definition on offer. I quote a paragraph of interest:

Yet Russia’s oligarchy (that is, the control of the state and economy by a small group of well-placed, extremely wealthy insiders) is alive and well. The supposedly all-powerful Mr. Putin actually devotes much of his time to refereeing bitter disputes between oligarchs like Igor I. Sechin, the head of the state oil company Rosneft, and Gennady N. Timchenko, a co-owner of Russia’s largest oil trading company and an independent natural gas producer. These latter-day oligarchs, many of whom have built vast business empires on the back of longstanding connections to Mr. Putin, are part of a political tradition that dates back to the rapid expansion of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy in the 1400s.

---End quotation

The article, "Russia’s Oligarchy, Alive and Well" was written by Andrew S. Weiss and appeared on the editorial pages of the NY Times in December 2013. The idea seems to be that Czarist Russia, too, was a kind of oligarchy of the great princes, something like Saudi Arabia, perhaps? The author, Andrew S. Weiss was listed as "vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace."

Consulting the prior paragraph in the same article, one finds the suggestion that Russia has gone beyond oligarchy:

At first glance, this turn of events seems to illustrate just how much Russia has changed since October 2003, when Mr. Khodorkovsky’s jet was stormed on the tarmac of a Siberian airport by masked agents of Russia’s Federal Security Service. The familiar narrative holds that Mr. Putin enjoys nearly limitless power, having brought the oligarchs to heel, re-centralized political authority, dismantled fledgling democratic institutions and put most of the economy back under state control. By confounding expectations that Mr. Khodorkovsky would rot in prison forever, Mr. Putin left little doubt about his near-total domination of the Russian political scene.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/russias-oligarchy-alive-and-well.html

I think we have to ask here about what is meant by "control of the state and economy by a small group of well-placed, extremely wealthy insiders." This agrees with the Aristotelian concept of oligarchy, but, obviously, the degree of control would seem to matter. (At least one so-called oligarch went to jail.) Again, how are we to understand "control of the economy."? How much control is needed to count as an oligarchy? Again, how small does the group of insiders have to be to count as an oligarchy? Would, for instance, the U.S. richest 1% possibly count as an oligarchy, given that this amounts to about 3.2 million people in a population of 320 million?

I don't see how we could possibly answer such questions without knowing the details. How can we evaluate claims or accusations, say, of "oligarchy" vs. "Tending toward oligarchy?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Howard & readers,

I greatly appreciate your opinion about oligarchy and its consequences in the control of economy. Your questions about the importance of control to be needed to count as an oligarchy, are very important ones. You speak about the U.S. and I think that many countries are in the same situation. For example in my country, France, the "Gilets Jaunes", representing may be a majority of Frenchmen (at its begining), are rejecting the opinion of our government, which had been elected by a minority of Frenchmen as the others did not participate to this election.

I think that the citizen of these country may find some ways to answer these questions, but I agree with you that this is the main problem: how to reject the opinion of people who had been elected with a minority of citizen, the others being unable to give their opinion through the existing system of voting. And they cannot change this system!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Many thanks for your good words on my note.

I think your question below is a good one, and it has much to do with the topic of elitism and "economic elite domination." Whatever the present degree or reality of the complaints, we can be sure that the complaints and discontents are quite real, and that they have much to do with a tendency toward suppression. I see the problems as a matter of the development of defects of representation in republican government or representative institutions --due to large-scale economic shifts, changes and related social-economic dislocations.

Briefly, the world has some need to take a break from globalization and reliance on international trade as the primary source of economic growth. However, the accomplishments may be evaluated, and they are substantial, they have brought along a series of negative consequences which require thorough and thoughtful attention and consideration. Rising populism and nationalism are signs of the times, and the perceived threat of oligarchy needs to be examined, since it is central in present-day discontents.

Note, again, that in Aristotle, "aristocracy" declines into oligarchy as the common interest is ignored to favor the particular interests of an economic elite. In modern terms, this can be understood as the development of defects in the system of political representation. It is no accident, I think, that the political thought of the period of globalization has so often thrown up versions of anti-representational doctrines --usually in favor of an uncritical, holistic flow of pubic and academic discourse. This "heavenly chorus," it has been said, sings with a class accent. Or, better, perhaps, the loudest, most persistent voices are usually those with the most prominent institutional positions.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

I think that the citizen of these country may find some ways to answer these questions, but I agree with you that this is the main problem: how to reject the opinion of people who had been elected with a minority of citizen, the others being unable to give their opinion through the existing system of voting. And they cannot change this system!

Dear Howard & readers,

You have very well understook my question, which was about "economic elite domination"and the fact that our loudest voices were usually those with the more prominent institutional posittions.

This "economic elite" is in France issued from our ENA (National School of administration). The critics of this school are that it discourage its students from innovative thinking and pushes them to take conventional conventions. This is, I think, the error of our political class to be too intellectually conformists.

To take a break from globalisation and and reliance on international trade we need some new politicians issued from other schools of thought. Why not our Fields Medal, the mathematician Cedric Villani, who is trying to make a name as a politician, but is not enougth considered by the other French politicians? Or other non conventional thinkers ...

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Thank you for your suggestion concerning Cédric Villani, a name with which I was not familiar.

I ran across the following brief interview with him which runs about 5 Min., and concerns both mathematics and politics-- titled "Mathematics and Politics Cédric Villani":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxaOVdQwUq8

Perhaps you will expand on your view of Villani and your critique of conventional views in French politics? As I understand your point, this excess of conventionality grows directly out of the educational system and the ENA in particular.

Politics is a practical art, I'd say,--consistent with the Aristotelian approach; and it is often said that "without discipline there is no art," but an excess of discipline might also diminish the art of politics. Politics cannot be made over into a science, and that is likely part of the reason that we see so few scientists in political roles.

H.G. Callaway

Thank you very much Howard for your questions. I will try to answer them and to ask to you and other readers what is occuring in your countries.

1) Why is it necessary nowadays to have followed very few schools (for France it is ENA and Science Po.) in order to become accepted by the whole population as a politician? As I have already said about ENA, but this is also true for Science Po., these schools perpetuate a culture of conformism and secrecy for politicians in our country. Is this also true in other countries?

2) Why government ministers are rarely specialists in their administrative domain (they are not teachers for national education, not farmers for agriculture, and so on), but they are chosen in the circle of friends and the members of the two previous schools of the head of the state. Some of them are changing their ministery when necessary for him, without any problem. For example why Villani was not chosen as minister of education? Is this also true in your country?

3) Why the members of the government are so few when they vote important laws? Very often from more than 500 members of the French parliament only one tenth are voting these very important laws without any reprimand from the population. Is this also true in your country?

Just a surprising new: our head of state had just said that he wants to suppress ENA and other structures! He was a former student of ENA and Science Po., who had aready said : j'ai la tête d'un moule? (difficult translation:" Have I the head of a mold?", but I am not sure about this translation).

Aristotle don't know ochlocracy. Everyday implies event-driven. The gerarchy is not one task-top-down (like MS-DOS program), is like a multi-task-event-driven as Apple/Windows OS.

Guys (as your senior allow me to call you that):

Being no expert in these things, I would like to know your opinion about "regimes" as an alternative category.

I grew up in the communist Czechoslovakia, going through my adolescence during the big "purges" of the second half of 50's. They did not regard me, it was the comrades making away with comrades. But there were monster processes and in a few years over 300 high-ranking public figures were hanged (the average was a bit over one a week). Later, when I was at the University, the bloody excesses were over but it was obvious that the ruling Party (definitely more than an oligarchy, but much less than a democracy) was afraid of - and paralyzed by - the regime which became a kind of automaton, a Golem out of their control.

Today I perceive another kind of "regime" lurking behind the global doors - the financial automatons (also referred to as "markets"). The amount of speculative money played on the markets is maybe 10 times more than the real worth of global economy. It is an airee construction, but it controls great many Governments (for example, the markets very strongly condition Italy where I now live). Maybe that by now it controls the whole world, yet I do not believe at all that it is a conspiracy of an oligarchic group of the rich. Rather, I am afraid that it might be an emerging automaton-regime that will eventually take over a global control of everybody - including the rich.

What do you think of that?

Dear Giorgio,

If ochlocracy can work with a society of few members, how can a society with millions of members name everyday their power?

Dear Stan,

Thank you very much for your view from Czechoslovakia, which may be the same as those from other countries of Eastern Europe. I think that your first regime was like an oligarchy, with few members at his head, leading to a kind of automaton. The second regime was like ours conducted by the market. You are thinking that it is an emerging automaton-regime, but I think that the regime is always conducted by the rich, but they let you think that it will take over a global control including them.

Thanks Daniel

The members of the government, without too much remorse, being the main purpose managing money and staying in power, tend to satisfy the most disparate requests. There is no opposition of ideas or principles, power is aimed at consensus. The purpose is to stay in the button room. So groups of people can get what they want from power, lacking in government the medium-long term goals to be achieved. The concept of limited resource does not exist, the egg today is better than a chicken tomorrow. A government driven by polls and social media, ..: ochlocracy

Dear Daniel,

With respect to the "first regime", I feel it was not that simple. The Communist Party in Czechoslovakia was intentionally non-elitist and had a broad basis (40% of the vote in 1948); it was not pyramidal (much unlike Communist Parties in Soviet Union or in Romania, for example). Also many of the party members were quite decent people, motivated basically by the preceeding tyranny of Hitler. Yet, as a whole, the whole Party inevitably drifted into the regime (imho, because of their flawed ideology). As I saw it, the persons on the top were not born brutes, they became brutes, a fact which left me with a sense of insecurity and mistrust of political organizations that still persists.

Regarding the emergent financial-automaton-regime are you so sure that it is controlled by the rich? My impression is that the rich may play along, they are even forced to play along, but they do not control it. It controls itself.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Demontis & readers,

If "oclocracy" means "rule by the masses," then this might be compared to Aristotle on (extreme) democracy --rule by the many in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good.

On the other hand, your description below might match other concepts of contemporary political analysis. You certainly suggest something of a regime based on accommodation and trading of favors. But you neglect the role of great institutions--which might bring one around to the concept of corporatism. The chief media influences are after all examples of corporate media. Thinking of this as big business, one may suspect a tendency to to shade the reporting to favor other corporate or political interests. The idea of corporatism is that the great institutions, public and private have become the most important political constituencies, and that the media function to influence public opinion --somewhat in the style of low-key advertising or propaganda. "Polls and social media" would drive government, perhaps, but only back and forth among the political constituencies --including voters and popular opinion along the way.

Readers of this thread may find the following of interest--several pages in--on "corporatism."

Book Pluralism, Pragmatism and American Democracy: A Minority Report

Notice the concern above regarding the domination of the great schools in French politics. These too, may be regarded as political constituencies which lend support to government in exchange for political support of their continued influence and power. Not all influential institutions or "corporate bodies" are businesses in the usual sense. The great French schools might be compared to Oxford and Cambridge in the U.K. or to the American "Ivy League." All these institutions are extremely influential, rich and powerful.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

The members of the government, without too much remorse, being the main purpose of managing money and staying in power, tend to satisfy the most disparate requests. There is no opposition of ideas or principles, power is aimed at consensus. The purpose is to stay in the button room. So groups of people get what they want from power, lacking in government the medium-long term goals to be achieved. The concept of limited resource does not exist, the egg today is better than a chicken tomorrow. A government driven by polls and social media ..: oclocracy

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kausel & readers,

I would agree with what you say, quoted below. Globalization has had untoward political effects--basically because it has deeply divided domestic political interests--and corporatist interests in particular. The major participant countries have developed political factions, one side benefiting from and favoring further expansion of foreign trade as a source of wealth, the other faction opposing it and favoring domestic sources of wealth. The conflicts are so deep that they tend to render domestic politics dysfunctional. The U.K. conflict on Brexit is a good example. Parliament has been at an impasse.

In outline, it has been a conflict between foreign commerce (and international finance) on the one hand and domestic manufacturing (and related employment) on the other. In spite of the neo-liberal dogma to the contrary, we now see that no major country can do without extensive domestic manufacturing --let alone a world power. We now see, at home in the U.S., that extensive exporting of manufacturing industry has undercut the middle class--and the lower middle class in particular--and partly destabilized the political system in consequence.

Note that Aristotle has it that a political system which avoids great excesses of wealth, poverty and inequalities will tend to be more stable--rule by a large middle class, the "middling sorts." But globalization has been accompanied by growing inequalities around the world and over several decades now. The interests of ordinary people have been sacrificed to those of the rich and the upper-middle class; and the interests of "fly-over" America to the interest of the coasts, the interests of small business to those of big business, etc, etc. The politicians have prevalently avoided representing ordinary people and domestic interests at risk. They much prefer to attend to conveniently concentrated, larger-scale constituencies --which have included the major beneficiaries (and advocates) of globalization.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

The immediate reasons for turmoil and dissatisfaction with elites of power may sound different in our countries, but it all seems to come down to the same causes. The problems have been mentioned above by both of you. These ailments are rooted in the effects of globalization. The world has to recognize the malady that has slowly evolved from the economics of globalization. There are powerful impediments to a general recognition, however. The reaction that took the form of populist tendencies, is actually against globalization. It is distorted, in part by the struggle, by the division and through the pro- globalization position of the common media. ...

Monarchies, and all political institutions that last much time has the tendency to procure a lot of corruption sourrounding, people favoured, oligarchies governing in the shadow, maybe for this reason Aristotle cited monarchies when described tyranny (somehow it is hinted that monarchy is ideal for tyranny).

We can think that this can be a tendency of all people governing, but If you change all the commanding people each eight years for example, as it happens in modern democracies then they only have eight years to perform their net of favouritism and interests. That puts a lot of difficulties in this sense.

Also, if they are watched by mature institutions like the judges, it becomes even more difficult. And this would improve good government in benefit of people, which is main target in good politics.

Dear all,

We may think that each government is unique in what every political nation has its own problems, even if globalization is extending worldwide. But the three types Aristotle distinguish as extreme ones permit to introduce many variations when you think that they may exist in degrees, as himself and Howard told us. The fourth type introduced by Justin (anarchy) is also important to consider, I think, even as he said that an anarchic form of government could be argued as not being a government at all. For ochlocracy, I think, like Howard, that it might be compared to Aristotle government of the many.

Daniel

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Re-emphasizing the Aristotelian typology, I think to say that corporatism is more comparable to oligarchy. In the ancient Greek city-state, an oligarchy would have been made of a inter-related group of rich, prominent citizens or their families --holders of wealth and owners of lands, estates, houses and businesses, perhaps.

Great families and their wealth continue to exist in the contemporary world, of course, but a great deal of the control of wealth and power has been transferred to great "Impersonal" institutions --whether private corporations, non-profit organizations or public agencies. Control of institutions, public or private has become quite as important as ownership of wealth. Those who can control the resources of great institutions don't need to own them.

Large business corporations, like other large-scale institutions are creations of the state or chartered by the state and many other great institutions are financed by the state. It is a natural expectation that politicians should turn for support to institutions in any way dependent, directly or indirectly, on public finance. In the U.S., I find it plausible to view the divisiveness, conflict and occasional dysfunction as a consequence of party conflict over control of government resources to aid and support the party's favored (and supportive) institutions.

Globalization added to the development, since the flows of international finance rest on assurance or trust that the investors will be able to reclaim their investments, and this depends, in significant degree on the good will of powerful people abroad. This has knitted together networks of international elites with considerable power within the various domestic political systems --and aggravated the pre-existing institutional-political competitions. Attending to this dance and conflict of the elephants, the politicians are distracted from their representation of the interests of ordinary citizens.

Corporatism is comparable to oligarchy, insofar as the great institutions effectively rule, in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good. What were you saying about the domination of the great national schools over French politics?

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

According to Aristotle, oligarchy results from the "degeneration" of aristocracy, which is regarded as "rule by the best," in the common interest. But the ancient connotations of the word "aristocracy," have become remote to us. This is part of the reason that we so prevalently speak of "elites" and "elitism."

Consider, then the thesis that contemporary oligarchy (or the tendency toward oligarchy) is a result of the "degeneration of elitism" --its departing from concern with the common good, in the direction of favoring its own (personal, institutional) self-interest.

In the context of that thesis, one might reasonable turn to a consideration of the so-called "Iron law of oligarchy." There is a brief summary by Darcy K. Leach --of this thesis and related debates-- available on R.G. I quote the abstract:

The iron law of oligarchy refers to a provocative and very influential theory posited by German social theorist, Robert Michels. In his seminal analysis of the German Social Democratic Party in 1911, Michels argued that all organizations – no matter how democratic their original intentions – eventually come to be ruled by a powerful entrenched minority that, when necessary, will act illegitimately to squelch internal opposition and divert the organization's goals in order to maintain its power. This article summarizes Michels' argument, reviews the theoretical debates it has provoked, outlines the findings of the empirical research evaluating his claims, and discusses some of the methodological difficulties that have plagued this inquiry.

---End quotation

See:

Chapter Oligarchy, Iron Law of

I want to recommend this article, from the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, to readers of this thread. Is contemporary elitism "degenerating" in the direction of oligarchy --for lack of democratic accountability?

Please have a look. Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

Hence, Aristotle talks about five forms of government. How did Aristotle distinguish between 'democracy' and 'constitutional government'? Do we have today any examples of aristocracy (government of the best)?

_____

There are still two forms besides democracy and oligarchy; one of them is universally recognized and included among the four principal forms of government, which are said to be (1) monarchy, (2) oligarchy, (3) democracy, and (4) the so-called aristocracy or government of the best. But there is also a fifth, which retains the generic name of polity or constitutional government.

- Aristotle

OK, the decline gradient of republics and democracies according to Aristotle are as follows:

_____

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.

- Aristotle

According to Aristotle, here is the difference between democracy and oligarchy:

_____

The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is a democracy.

- Aristotle

Here is the reason as to why poor govern in democracy according to Aristotle:

_____

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.

- Aristotle

Looks like Aristotle's view on democracy was quite clear:

_____

Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.

- Aristotle

Aristotle about a key postulate of democracy:

_____

Democracy arose from men's thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal absolutely.

- Aristotle

Dear Len,

I agree with you that Aristotle in his Politics distinguished many forms of governments. For example Papageorgiou (1990) asked: Four or five types of democracy in Aristotle? Colas (2004) proposed six types of governments, but these six types can be distinguished by a government of the One, the Few and the Many, which lead to only three forms as I proposed. Many other papers may be cited. However, my question was not about these forms used by Aristotle but about the other forms we can see nowadays, which are different from Aristotle’s.

Daniel

References:

Colas, D. (2004). Anomie et légalité: les origines de la science politique chez Platon et Aristote. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, XLII (129), pp. 87-94.

Papageorgiou, C.I. (1990). Four or five types of democracy in Aristotle? History of Political thought, XI (1), pp. 1-8.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mizrah & readers,

Thanks for your comments and questions on this thread.

It is important to keep in mind that the contemporary connotations of the words used to translate Aristotle's Greek can be misleading. However, they have a more or less conventional use in discussions of Aristotle. For example, in Aristotle, "aristocracy" means "rule by the best," and he thinks of this in terms of those who have attained to the Aristotelian virtues of his Ethics. However, this is fairly remote from modern conception of aristocracy which we tend to think of as a matter of an hereditary upper-class ruling in its own self-interest. The modern concept is closer to Aristotle on oligarchy or plutocracy.

Much the same can be said for Aristotle's usage of "democracy." For Aristotle this is one of the "degenerate" forms, though he remarks that it is more tolerable than oligarchy. Democracy basically means "rule by the many, poor, in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good." The modern term "democracy." in contrast, is often equivalent to "constitutional republic," and often more resembles Aristotle on "polity" sometimes translated as "constitutional government." Aristotle's preference for what he calls "polity," is that it involves a balance between "aristocratic" and "democratic" elements which has greater stability and helps keep the "aristocratic' element from declining toward oligarchy. Aristotle's "polity," one might say, involves a concept of "democratic accountability."

It is perhaps worth noting that the negative concept of "democracy" persisted down to the time of the American founding in the late 18th century. Partly in consequence, what we call the "Democratic" party, today, the party of FDR, JFK and LBJ, etc. was originally called the "Republican" party when it was founded in the time of Jefferson and Madison.

The modern "Republican" party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower, etc, was founded just before the U.S. Civil War--drawing chiefly on the Northern Whigs --the conservatives of the second (Democrats vs. Whigs) party system.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kausel & readers,

I recall a quip of Emerson's to the effect that one should never read a book that is less than 100 years old! I have my doubts on that, but you are quite right that the persistence of Aristotle is remarkable. Though his natural science, astronomy, etc., is chiefly obsolete, many people find continued relevancy in his ethics, politics and logic. One might say that Aristotle's philosophy represents much of the common sense of Western civilization, and re-emphasis on Aristotle has often proved to be an internationally unifying theme. Perhaps Confucius is an (Eastern) equal in historical influence?

That Aristotle's ethics and politics makes sense to us show his historical influence on us, of course. But it is also plausibly an indication that human nature has not changed much over the centuries and millennia --in spite of all that has changed in the natural sciences. It also suggest that ethics and politics are grounded more in commonalities of human nature than in anything else. I have also long found Aristotle's De Anima fascinating (sometimes translated as "On the Soul," rendering Aristotle's Greek, "psyche" as "soul.") Again, Aristotle's Poetics has had a gigantic influence down the ages.

The great Aristotelian-Christian synthesis of Thomas Aquinas certainly belongs to Aristotle's influence and shows his importance. Where would the Renaissance have been without the recovery of Aristotle's writings? The Western church would be something quite different without the influence of Aristotle via Aquinas.

Briefly, on your further theme, I do not really know if the remains of Britain's old aristocracy should really count as an aristocracy. I suspect that the elite elements of U.K. society might chiefly be found elsewhere? Note that the hereditary element in the House of Lords has been much reduced and its powers significantly limited.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

What is striking about Aristotle is that his ethics, logic and his 4th C. BC ideas about many areas of knowledge are applicable today. Thomas Aquinas' comparison of Aristotelian reason and morality to love for our neighbors, helped cultivate the 'resourcefulness' of Aristotle in medieval (religious) thought. In reading Aristotle one gets a feeling that the most important thought was already said many centuries ago

Dear Justin & readers,

I would like to come back to the anarchic form of government that Justin had proposed.

The phenomenon of anarchy (ἀναρχία) was considered by Aristotle as a vacancy of power which leads to the dissolution of the political community and the destruction of the city. So that he did not consider it as a form of government. However in more recent times a number of authors had considered it as a new political form, as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his treatise: What is property? (1840). From this time anarchic societies based on voluntary associations had been created, some of them disappearing quickly, some others always existing, as a number of federations of neighbourhood. Would some people following this discussion give us more information on some of these communities and tell us if they are really anarchist?

Daniel

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

I agree that anarchy is not form of government --and with the criticism you mention in Aristotle.

But you leave me in some doubt on the direction you want to see developed on this thread. Would you like to see more scholarly attention to the Aristotelian texts? Are you satisfied with the answers given to your initial question? Is there room for engagement with various contemporary views and directions of thought?

Again, regarding "voluntary association," is there proper room for this in civil society, within the law, without moving in the direction of anarchy?

Many thanks for your attention.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

The phenomenon of anarchy (ἀναρχία) was considered by Aristotle as a vacancy of power which leads to the dissolution of the political community and the destruction of the city. So that he did not consider it as a form of government.

Dear Howard & readers,

Yes I appreciate very much our discussion on the Aristotelian texts, which is very rich and tell us always many things about contemporary governments. But I think also that we may discuss about various contemporary directions of thought on the problems raised by a greater number of governments. For example in France, the 2017 presidential election saw the highest level of protest voting and abstentions, with 16 million blank, spoiled ballots and abstentions (34 per cent of the voters). What is wrong in our country?

The anarchist movement, even if you do not consider it as an acceptable form government, rejects representative democracy in favour of a more direct form of government. For example the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava), claims to have shifted towards anarchism, in late 2012. However private property is officially recognized and traces of authoritarianism are still visible in Rojava. However it is an innovative political experience which needs to be analyzed.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

I wonder in particular about "civil society" in France. Perhaps you can tell us all something about this. Our tendency in the U.S. is to view independent institutions of civil society as a source of democratic strength and resources. But I have the impression that France has contrary traditions.

I ran across the following, short essay on this topic, and thought to get some comments on it. It is basically a student's impression on the topic, after studying in Paris. The author is Matthew Westlund, of Georgetown University. I quote a paragraph of interest:

When I tried to explain to him the good that a Carnegie or MacArthur Foundation does, he told me that I was missing the point; if a museum, theatre, or group (inside or outside of France) needs financial support, it is the government’s role to provide, not any individual’s. In return for a higher tax rate, most French disclaim any need to go above and beyond what the government provides for others. For this reason, government administrators are given the best possible education, as they are expected to maintain this level of government structure over all aspects of society.

---End quotation---

See:

https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/on-civil-society-and-religion-in-france

It is not, of course that American institutions of civil society are all giants. But they do exist in all sizes and shapes and localities. Some very large most much smaller. A significant historical contrast, of course, is that the U.S. has a very strong "denominational" tradition, and no single denomination has ever dominated the landscape. The first Amendment's prohibition of religious establishment and its guarantee of freedom of religious practice is in many ways the original model of voluntary institutions of civil society.

Perhaps we have less need of "anarchists"?

H.G. Callaway

Following answers

@ Daniel Courgeau: "... my question was not about these forms used by Aristotle but about the other forms we can see nowadays, which are different from Aristotle’s."

Dear Director Daniel Courgeau,

In studying society governing forms, it's a common point to look and assess the Aristotelian heritage, as this genius of thoughts had left a number of revelations quite well reflecting to some extent a contemporary situation. One may see it as a great basis, as an initial point in any serious study.

Certain cornerstones introduced by Aristotle, like a notion of a representative democracy, and a concept of 'one person - one vote' nowadays are considered as generally accepted ones. It's all despite the fact that many countries have profound differences in their economies, history of political systems, national unity, national educational, religious, wellbeing uniformity, balance of relations between central and local authorities, level of multi-racial, multi-national tensions, level and character of involvement in International relations, etc.

There are two possible approaches to study governing models - either reviewing in considerable details each country's governing models separately, and then comparing them, or identifying first the most critical common controversies and focus on them exclusively. One to look at is 'a representative democracy'. What is it? Here are the questions. It is assumed that a spectrum of existing political parties allows to cover majority of the citizens' interests. Is it true?

The lack of political interests representation makes a certain part of population to become a floating situational block of electorate that could vote for any party, depends on circumstances. They are typically called 'independent'. This situation isn't 'a representative democracy', it's a political trade that isn't satisfactory neither for political parties, nor for the electorate, and it can't produce a stable government.

Hence, we have insufficient spectrum of political parties. What's the reason - some parties are prohibited by a country constitution, other ones do not have any sizable voters' representation, another typical case is a population split of interests over a short time cultural, judicial, internal relations, etc. event that is a short lived event clearly unrelated to either party's political platform. What happen in reality - this issue gets politicized leading to a political antagonism all across the entire society - every issue, every event, every controversy become a source of agitation and fierce political debates just only for a single reason that it's fueled by major political parties, that would like to keep stable their grip over the electorate. In an extreme case a country doesn't need more than two major parties. Several smaller ones are just an embellishment of the political representation.

Another cornerstone of democracy that was introduced by Aristotle is 'one person, one vote' concepts. The logic of this concept comes from the statement that all people are created equal. Therefore, each one's interests should be considered by a society with recognizing different individuals' equal rights, when represented in the decision making representative political institutions like, for instance, presidency (or prime minister), and parliament.

However, being born equal doesn't mean the people aged enough to vote are absolutely equal. There are many factors making people very different, for instance, education, citizenship, family status, professional skills and achievements, illegal emigrants, services of community, religion, health category, foreign temporary workers, services for the country, non-citizens having legal rights to live, level of income, level of possessions, personal interests and preferences, etc.. It doesn't mean that people have to be discriminated by any of those factors. On the other hand, a complete disregard of the obvious fact that people aren't actually equal creates a political vacuum filled up by the countless fraud and manipulations in who's going to vote.

Since this concept 'one person - one vote' is considered immutable, then all sorts of manipulations and attempts to change the balance of power to one or another side are practically effected by changing the number of people who can vote in favor of any decision (lowering the minimum age of legal voters, multiple voting by the same person, voting on the basis of false documents, voting by non-citizens, voting by illegal emigrants on a basis of their legal of false IDs, early votes by mails from non-eligible voters, etc.). In essence, all those and other fraudulent ways to vote are a criminal deception of the existing state voting systems caused by a universal adaption of this concept 'one person - one vote'.

Perhaps, it is time to look at this ancient concept from the modern view points as to what extent it is adequate existing political, judicial, economical, historical, and philosophical realities. To what extent it enforces countries and world stability, peace, political and economic progress. It would be interesting to know what professional philosophers think about those possible discrepancies.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear MIzrah & readers,

What you say about Aristotle's politics strikes me as anachronistic. You seem to be reading modern concepts back into ancient Greek thought? In particular, it is not clear to me, at least, that Aristotle makes use of a concept of "representative democracy' or the concept of "one person, one vote." The Greek city-sate was, if democratic at all, a matter of more or less direct democracy, each citizen would have a vote in legislation, and in the courts of law. Not all persons were citizens.

I emphasize these points not to recommend the practices, but instead to set the record straight, as relevant to present themes on this thread, or perhaps to stimulate some further attention to Aristotle's texts. Note that the prevalence of the phrase "one person, one vote," arose from a modern decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, restricting state constitutional practices in the election of the upper houses of the state legislatures.

What might be more relevant to the rest of your note is the idea of property qualifications for the franchise. For example, this was a requirement for voting in the U.S. in the early republic, though it quickly evolved away as the states lowered the qualifications for voting. A related idea is that of property qualifications for office holding. That, too, is mostly gone in the U.S. at least. But these and similar restrictions introduce some greater "aristocratic" element as contrasted with the majoritarian elements of constitutional regimes.

The idea of independent civil society may also be of interest in this connection. Without it, every institution will, in degree, be dependent on the state; and that suggests, in turn, a kind of state sanction for every candidate for office--de facto if not de jure. One might also think of this in terms of the "freedom of association." One might think of the absence of independent institutions of civil society as a restriction on the freedom of association. Might this connect to the dominance of the great French schools regarding elected officials?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Certain cornerstones introduced by Aristotle, like a notion of a representative democracy, and a concept of 'one person - one vote' nowadays are considered as generally accepted ones. It's all despite the fact that many countries have profound differences in their economies, history of political systems, national unity, national educational, religious, wellbeing uniformity, balance of relations between central and local authorities, level of multi-racial, multi-national tensions, level and character of involvement in International relations, etc.

Dear Cecilia, Len, Howard & readers,

Thank you very much for your contributions to this discussion, which I found vey deep and interesting. I will try here to continue it on developing some important points you raised.

First, I thank Cecilia for opening a true discussion about anarchy, even if Howard thinks that it is not a form of government. I entirely agree with the various affiliations, she gave, to which this concept may lead. I like particularly what she said about “experimental social groups that reject having a leader and intend to be egalitarian among themselves”. The ecological or political groups she cites in US, Tennessee and Virginia, are also existing in other communities: in Mexico, the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities; in Bolivia, the Federation of Neighbourhood Councils-El Alto, the Free Town Christiania, in Denmark, and so on. I think that the example of the Rojava, I previously gave, enters in the “native and religious groups, to whom land/property is important”. In all these cases she considers that the concept of anarchy may lead to political changes, but does she consider anarchy as a political form of government, as it seems to me?

I also thank Len for his defence of the Aristotelian heritage, in contemporary situation. I am also a fervent reader of Aristotle and the Methodos Series, I edit with Robert Franck, makes many references to his writings as a philosopher. In the joint introduction of the book on Probability and Social Science, which I published in this series in 2012, you will see how I consider Aristotle as an important formaliser of the notion of “justice” in the past genesis of probability. However, I will agree with Howard that the concept of representative democracy and the concept of “one person, one vote” were not in ancient Greek thought. In fact Aristotle elaborated a theory of slavery as a national practice, and describes the master-slave relationship as the indispensable bond between that which commands by nature (ἄρχον φύσει) and that which is commanded (ἀρχόμενον) to ensure their common interest. He says in Politics, I, 2:

This is far from our democratic concepts.

Finally, I thank Howard for his interest in the comparison between US and France. I think that our two countries are no more democracies but are becoming oligarchies, where money and political power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of very few people as the Nobel price in economy, Paul Krugman said in 2011 (Oligarchy, American Style. The New York Times). I will develop next week in more details this theme.

Sorry, I forgot to join the General introduction of Probability and Social Science to my previous answer.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Thanks for your comments on the foregoing notes and exchanges.

Generally, I prefer to say that there is some decline in the U.S. "in the direction of oligarchy." Its a matter of the prevalence of, and tolerance for, what may be properly called "oligarchic structures" --social, economic and political structures of a sort which may contribute to the creation or maintenance of oligarchy.

It may be that the concept of "corporatism" is more appropriate given the very large-scale and diffuse character of the problems. Recall my question of whether the top "1%" of income in the U.S. (whatever its role in "economic elite domination") could constitute an "oligarchy," given that it amounts to 3.2 million in a population of 320 million. The suggestion of the term "oligarchy" is that of a comparatively small group, "the few" (in Aristotelian terms) operating on the basis of explicit, though perhaps covert coordination of interests. The distinction between "oligarchy" and "economic elite domination," is worth pausing over.

See the following question and thread of discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_oligarchy_Is_there_a_present_danger_of_oligarchy

I see the problems as more a matter of functional, de facto mutual adjustments of elite interests--much of which arose during the Cold War. The related problems have only been exacerbated by globalization. It may be that the Aristotelian term, "oligarchy" is simply less appropriate in application to contemporary political analysis. I treat this as an open question.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Finally, I thank Howard for his interest in the comparison between US and France. I think that our two countries are no more democracies but are becoming oligarchies, where money and political power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of very few people as the Nobel price in economy, Paul Krugman said in 2011 (Oligarchy, American Style. The New York Times). I will develop next week in more details this theme.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Given Courgeau's mention of it, readers of this thread may want to have a look at the Krugman piece, "Oligarchy, American Style" from 2011.

I think one can easily agree with his conclusion:

The larger answer, however, is that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?

Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html

Notice, though that the term "oligarchy" appears chiefly in the title. There is no analysis on offer of the social, economic and political structures conductive to the concentrations of power he rightly complains of. We get instead chiefly statistics on income distributions--which, of course, have their own importance. This is evidence of growing inequalities.

I'd be more interested in what Krugman has to say, if we might better appreciate some skepticism toward public and private institutional ("corporatist") consolidation, say, of the sort so prominent in the Cold War.

Webster's Dictionary defines "corporatism" as follows:

corporatism

noun cor·​po·​rat·​ism | \ ˈkȯr-p(ə-)rə-ˌti-zəm \

Definition of corporatism

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

---End quotation

My point concerns the suitability of such concentration in relation to the historical degrees, levels and limits of political competence in American society. Part of my argument has been that any large, heterogeneous society will have greater problems with high concentrations of social, political and economic power --as may be found congenial in smaller, more homogeneous societies --where "corporatism," (or "neo-corporatism") has traditionally been idealized.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Howard & readers,

Yes I agree with you that “0.1%” of the US population, as said by Krugman, and not 1% as you said, amounts to 320°000 individuals. But your head of government is only one of 320 millions, and his politics is greatly directed to the audience of the 0.1% of your population. So that my opinion that “oligarchy” is now valuable in your country seems to be true, and that is not so less appropriate as you said.

Your concept of “corporatism” seems also to me very coherent with the old concept of oligarchy proposed by Aristotle.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Thanks for your comment--and counter-argument.

I think that there is, indeed, a significant similarity between the Aristotlean concept of oligarchy, and the concept of corporatism as I've outlined it. I think I would still prefer to think in terms of a "vetocracy" (Fukuyama's term) of powerful corporatist interests. Many of them have the power to block whatever public policy they do not like.

The major difference with corporatism is that the constituencies of corporatism are institutions, and these institutions are able to call upon the support of large numbers of people who belong to or benefit from the institutions. It is not simply a matter of institutions of big business. Again, I doubt of the notion of explicit coordination even among the 320,000 of the top 0.1% --so that it is best to avoid suggestions of coordinated control. It is more a matter of confluence of interests which have yet to be met by effective political opposition.

It may well be that the President (and/or the Republicans in Congress) are chiefly directed to the projects and interests of the 0.1%, but then so are the attentions of many others so directed. (This includes a good number of the upper middle class.) One may think of it as a matter of "riding the gravy train," or getting in on "the next big thing." We don't tend to see the owners and managers of big money and big business in terms of monopoly and economic elite domination--not yet--; but, I suppose more along the lines of "captains of industry" --to borrow a nineteenth-century term. I certainly see a good deal of this in the press and the media generally.

Crucial to the American situation is to understand that the political parties compete for the support of the great institutions --both public and private. (They also tend to neglect the contrary interests of ordinary citizens.) If the Republicans, say, want tax-cuts for the rich and for big business, and the want to spend more on the military, then they expect support from these institutions, in return; and there is, then, a contrary political movement to make use of the largess of the federal government to support institutions, "public" or private which are more supportive of the Democrats--expanding the "public sector" and all that depends on it. One consequence of these developments is that more conservative thinkers have been practically driven out of the humanities and liberal arts in the universities --based, usually, on suspicion of lack of political correctness. More generally, the institutions of independent civil society come under pressure from the politically empowered.

I'd accept "oligarchy" as a popular term. But I think that the details of the present situation matter for the contemporary political analysis. We need to attend to the details of facilitating "oligarchic structures." Emphasis on the term "corporatism" also helps by pointing to the alienation from American political tradition of those advocating ever more political consolidation--concentration of power in the federal government and the presidency in particular. "Regulation," of large-scale institutions, however elaborate, (surely there must be some) may only increase the prospects of "policy capture." The question of the institutional insiders seems always to be, "Well, what can you do for us?" The goals and objectives of institutions are set from within and substantially enforced wherever possible. The politicians know how to give them what they want. In consequence, the dance of the elephants continues, though ordinary people often see it as a matter of the system being "rigged" against them.

H.G. Callaway

Aristotle´s oligarchy seems to have a negative connotation:

It can also be called according to Aristotle as the negative form of aristocracy (literally, government of the best). Strictly, the oligarchy will emerge when the succession of an aristocratic system is perpetuated by blood or mythical transfer, without the ethical and managerial qualities of the best.

While corporatism has not, in theory :

Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests. The idea is that when each group performs its designated function, society will function harmoniously — like a human body (corpus) from which its name derives.

Corporatist ideas have been expressed since Ancient Greek and Roman societies, with integration into Catholic social teaching and Christian democracy political parties. They have been paired by various advocates and implemented in various societies with a wide variety of political systems, including authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, liberalism and socialism.

Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between labour and business interest groups and the government to establish economic policy.This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy

------End quotation

But it can happen that corporatism could become a negative "hidden power", if laws and rights are not respected for example, with the objective of prevailing the ideas of any corporate group, then it should change the name and be called oligarchy, with all the negative connotations on it.

The end does not justify the means and if it is not a good end and also the means are not good, then it is a disaster.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mendez-Esteban & readers,

This distinction between corporatism and neo-corporatism has some importance in contemporary political analysis, especially in international comparisons. I have argued that corporatist or neo-corporatist forms may work better in smaller more homogeneous societies, but that they are less suited to larger more heterogeneous societies. Its implausible to transfer social and political models between societies of different sizes and degrees of internal social complexity; and the attempt often rests on comparatively superficial resemblances.

The basic problem is that corporatist forms tend to become excessively rigid, because they emphasize grouping people together and (official or quasi-official) representation on the basis of economic interests. This contrasts with traditional geographical representation which crosses diverse economic interests within a given geographic area or electoral district. In deciding on representation, the people within a geographic district are able to debate and sort out economic issues locally. The representatives they select locally are more likely to reflect the range of economic interests within the area.

We have been discussing a certain suggestive analogy:

Aristotelian aristocracy is to oligarchy

as

contemporary political elitism is to X.

I think it simply short-circuits the comparison and the examination of the analogy to immediately substitute "oligarchy" for X. The allegation or accusation of "oligarchy" is easy enough--it appears in many varieties of conspiracy theory. The proof is, of course, somewhat more difficult. But we need to ask, for instance, how ancient aristocracy differs from contemporary political elitism. One aspect of this is the important contemporary role of institutions --as contrasted with great families.

The idea of corporatism certainly suggests high-level coordination among economic interests. But even here, the coordination may or may not be dominated by special interests. That is a danger of which we should be aware. In consequence, I have posed the question of the prevalence of "oligarchic structures," --those that may contribute to establishing or maintaining --let us say--"economic elite domination." In this connection, I have also suggested the examination of the traditional theme of the "Iron law of oligarchy." But the theme is yet to be taken up on this thread. In fact, there are important counter-examples to the so-called "Iron law," and by examining the exceptions one may gain some insight into the social and political factors which contribute to the plausibility of the "Iron law." Though "oligarchy" is not inevitable, it is important to understand and avoid those "oligarchic structures" which make it more likely.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests. The idea is that when each group performs its designated function, society will function harmoniously — like a human body (corpus) from which its name derives.

Dear Callaway,

I fully understand your reasoning, and I understand also that you substitute X by oligarchy, as reality clearly demonstrates. Because I agree that contemporary economic elitism IS AN OLIGARCHY, with all negative connotations on it.

I have said many times, corruption is not a human tendency, but a tendency of the corrupted. Therefore the following reasoning about the Mitchell´s iron law is not completely true to my view. The unevitable developing of a certain democratic organization into oligarchy.

Also it depends on levels, how much of oligarchy exist in an organization? Nowadays we see a predominant economic elitism or oligarchy very powerful, and almost comparable to a tyranny (bad extreme version of oligarchy).

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1]It asserts that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.[1]

Michels's theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.

---------End quotation

When I said that corporatism could be good I referred to the following:

Everything in life can be good or bad depending on how you use it. I mean corporatism can be good.

I can tell you the case of agricultors. They need to be corporative.

Do you know how much it is paid to an agricultor for a kg of bananas or oranges?, no more than some cents. And, do you know how much do a consumer pay of it?, nowadays almost 3 euros. Is or is not worth to defend the interests of agricultors?. And, If they don´t do it, who will?. Thus corporatism is not bad in this case.

https://www.gavagrup.com/index.php/es/blog/672-el-agricultor-cobra-el-tomate-un-263-por-ciento-mas-barato-de-lo-que-paga-el-consumidor

We can ask who performs this abuse to agricultors, or consumers, depending on the view. Maybe it is a oligarchy of intermediaries.

Then we can agree that any corporative group that performs abuse or imposition can be the a oligarchy , opposite some others groups not.(it depends).

Monarchies are prone to tyranny, as stated by Aristotle, and also a focus of high corruption, this is quite true.

They have time to make a net of favouritism and interests sourrounding them and commanded by them. They abuse of power in the shadow. Since they do not work, all of them use to steal in order to finance their expensive lifes.

Also, sourrounding people to monarchies,like a lot of marquis, dukes, etc.. are the same, and also their sons are the same, and also their friends are the same. Each one of them, a great number, have thousand of millions of stolen money, or irregular money.

Also they use to have no moral, then they feel a lot of envy. If one of them, say, have 4 billion, and other only have 3.8 billion, then the other start to steal more and more, because he cannot be less.

In Spain, for example, the husband of the sister of the king IS IN JAIL for stealing thousand of million of public money. All the family say that they were not connected with the crime, even his wife, who can believe that?. But they don´t give back the money.

Many people, like this man, prefer to stay in jail and not give back the money, their prison is revised and they reach third degree magically, so they are out of jail in few years, and remain rich.

Money stolen must be given back, and many people must go to jail and fulfill all the condemnation.

The only solution for this spiral of corruption is to change the commanding people each 8 years, so they have less time to make the net of courruption and, of course end up with monarchies.

Also, to ensure that politician don´t belong to any economical family, or elite, it is needed that the coming politician are strictly watched by judges, and same with the economical elites, strictly watched.

Corruption is unbearable, and it worsen the life of people and carries the state to the disaster, but they do not care as long as they have money. As you say, EU must avoid that.

In Spain, corruption has reached high levels, it is written in the newspapers (you just have to read the newspapers), even the husband of the sister of the king is in jail for stolen thousand of millions of public money.

Public money has been stolen at all levels, central state, autonomic governments, even city counclis.

In central governments, there are a lot of cases related with PP government, many PP leaders procesed. (many cases, Punica, Gurtel, etc..) also there are cases related with PSOE.

In autonomic level it is famous the case of the 3% in which the president Pujol and his family in Catalonia stole thousand of million.

In local council it is famous the case of Marbella (lot of black money).

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Casos_judiciales_relacionados_con_corrupci%C3%B3n_pol%C3%ADtica_en_Espa%C3%B1a

But the above are only some examples, the tip of a enormous iceberg. Some people talk about percentages of PIB out of coutry in strange circumstances.

But nobody gives back the money. They have been stolen during 40 years and they think that everybody is going to shut up and they will keep the money.

Enormous flux of money has passed from public hands to private hands with a lot of tricks, for example a lot of fraudulent public contracts in the benefit of the same always.

Public enterprises which worked well passed to private hands, in contrary private enterprises that worked bad passed to public.

It is needed to investigate the capital fluxes, and you will see how capital has passed to private hands, and always same hands, all belonging to same family.

With respect to the EU funds,they take it all. The majority of people don´t even smell it.

In the meanwhile, a lot of people unemployed, but they go on stealing, they don´t care, they have no ethic.

They act as one in the shadow, they bully you (all in agreement) to obligate you to do what they want (even in personal matters and with multiple and cruel ways), during decades. If you don´t obey then you lose your employment and they go on bulliyng you, it does not matter if you have family to bring up.

What is unbelievable is that this corruption has been tolerated, promoted and fostered by "high authorities"...

Also there exist monitored incitements to violence, drugs and perverse sex.

EU MUST help the people to avoid that,because people are defendless. There is a oligarchy in the shadow doit this all, people can do few things.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mendez-Esteban & readers,

I think you create some doubt in your recent notes on how you understand Aristotle on "kingship." Spain, in the common, contemporary understanding of the country, is a constitutional monarchy--as is, say, the U.K. That is a little bit different from Aristotle's concept of "rule by the one." The king of Spain, and the rest of the royals, at least officially, would be subject to the law passed by the national parliament.

Your suggestions concerning "oligarchy" may also come into some doubt here. But this is not to question the case which you recommend to our attention of the bother-in-law of the king. I do not know the details of the case, but perhaps your suggestions about oligarchy have to do more with Spain than with other countries--or with international elites generally?

Might it be that there is a conservative elite in Spain not fully paralled elsewhere? Something left over from the Franco regime, perhaps? I understand that there is currently an election going on and that there has been a resurgence of conservative, nationalist sentiment related to the rejection of the independence movement of recent note in Catalonia. Perhaps the more conservative elements in Spanish society are closing ranks?

Are you reading local conflicts and controversies in Spain onto the larger international scene? I agree, of course, that stolen money should be returned.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

In Spain, for example, the husband of the sister of the king IS IN JAIL for stealing thousand of million of public money. All the family say that they were not connected with the crime, even his wife, who can believe that?. But they don´t give back the money.

Many people, like this man, prefer to stay in jail and not give back the money, their prison is revised and they reach third degree magically, so they are out of jail in few years, and remain rich.

Money stolen must be given back, and many people must go to jail and fulfill all the condemnation.

Dear Callaway,

In Spain there is not one oligarchy or family of power, there are several ones.

There exist the left hand oligarchy, where PSOE and friends do what they want, steal, give employ to theirs, give official protected houses to theirs etc..

There exist the right hand oligarchy where PP, and friends do what they want, steal, favour their people, give employ to theirs, give official protected houses to theirs etc..

There exist the monarchical oligarchy with same purpose.

And others...

Citizen that don´t belong to any family are bullied constantly by them and find lot of difficulties, they are normally unemployed. This is a crime against humanity, performed during more than 40 years.

The oligarchies fight each other for power, they steal the state and favour their people. They live like that, but the state is being looted.

Some PP ministers are processed (Rato, Zaplana, etc..), many people surrounding power of PP are processed, all they were friends of Aznar, even they went to the wedding of his doughter, but surprisingly Aznar didn´t notice anything of what his ministers did and therefore he is free, can you believe that?

With friends of monarchy is the same, do you believe that the wife of the man in the jail, the sister of the king, didn´t know anything?. Do you believe that?

What about the papers of Panama?

The PP candidate, Pablo Casado, finished half his studies of lawyer in months.

Many PP leaders, got fraudulent masters in University Juan Carlos I.

PSOE leader, Pedro Sanchez, seems that made also a fraudulent Phd Thesis.

There are plenty of cases, and they go on regardless of unemployment or other problems, they laugh on people.

Have a look on this,

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Casos_judiciales_relacionados_con_corrupci%C3%B3n_pol%C3%ADtica_en_Espa%C3%B1a

Do you think that these are spontaneous cases?, NO, not at all, this is generalized corruption of contemporary monarchical Spain, promoted and consented.

Callaway, this stinks, the only way is to change all the commanding people each eight years and end up with monarchy.

All the above cited, are quite developed in wikipedia, example of PSOE caso ERE and caso GUERRA, former vicepresident of PSOE government:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_ERE_en_Andaluc%C3%ADa

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_Guerra

More Socialist forgotten scandals under Felipe Gonzalez: Luis Roldan, Mariano Rubio, year 1994:

https://www.csmonitor.com/1994/0511/11021.html

I think that they didn´t return the money.

Please, observe that there are examples from the 80´s 90´s 2000 etc..more than 40 years. Franco was already dead.

Callaway, all the above are not old franquist guard. Please, get informed, these are monarchical people, all of them.

The PSOE leader Sanchez thesis:

A court of friends eager to grant the young socialist promise the title of "cum laude", today changed into "cum fraud". A doctoral thesis in which plagiarism and errors exceed 50% of the content. And a university, Camilo José Cela (UCJC) of Madrid, which violated its own rules to grant an express doctorate to Pedro Sánchez.

https://okdiario.com/investigacion/universidad-incumplio-tambien-normativa-convocar-lectura-tesis-fake-sanchez-4041208

This was the president of Madrid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZi33Y-Sq1M

The restoration of Constitutional order and rule of law is urgent and needed in Spain. monarchy is far from guarantying that, as sufficitently proven. Don´t look at me for serving that.

In contrary, during monarchical period that order have been destroyed, and a tendency to tyranny have appeared.

A whole trial is needed for this 40 years for corruption, and criminal behavior consented and fostered.

Also considering continuous harassment to the traditional people, good people, and middle class people, that constitutes a crime against humanity.

People who has stolen or commited any criminal act, must return the money and some of them must go to the jail immediately. People in jail must fulfill the whole prison.

Dear Howard, Carlos & readers,

Thank you very much for your interesting discussion on corporatism and oligarchy. I am very sorry to have not taken part to it, but I had, during these last days, very important and urgent work to finish.

I entirely agree with Howard that “extreme concentration of income is incompatible with democracy”: the “GAFA” (or “GAFAM”) are much more powerful than any political government and edict their laws to the whole world. They permit, through their instruments of persuasion, the nomination of governments which are to become their allied. And now it’s going back full circle.

I also entirely agree with Carlos when he says that “contemporary economic elitism is an OLIGARCHY, with all the negative connotations on it”. These contemporary elites, as well the powerful “GAFAM” or the less powerful oligarchies existing all over the world, steal the states and favour their money.

So that, which form of government may eradicate all these powers, and reduce corruption by an increased transparency, a greater convenience and/or cost reductions, as Madhu Bala and Deepak Verma said in their 2018 paper. Their concept of e-governance may be interesting to discuss. It is defined by the World Bank as: “government owned or operated information and communication technologies that transform relations with citizen, the private sector, and/or other government agencies so as to promote citizen empowerment, improve service delivery, strengthen accountability, increase transparency, or improve government efficiency”. Is this an entirely new form of government or is it like anarchism, as it leads to no government, but to promote every citizen government?

I would like to have your opinion on this form of government.

Reference:

Bala, M., Verma, D. (2018). Governance to good governance through e-governance: A critical review of concept, model, initiatives & challenges in India. International Journal of Management, IT & Engineering, 18 (10).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

I would like to suggest attention to an extended book review from the Guardian,

focused on two recent books concerning oligarchy. One book is concerned with ancient practices and the other with contemporary problems and prospects.

"How the oligarchy wins: lessons from ancient Greece"

by Ganesh Sitaraman

Ganesh Sitaraman looks at what two recent books – Classical Greek Oligarchy by Matthew Simonton and Oligarchy by Jeffrey Winters – can teach us about defending democracy from oligarchs.

See:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/15/oligarchy-lessons-ancient-greece

A short quotation from the opening of the review:

In his fascinating and insightful book Classical Greek Oligarchy, Matthew Simonton takes us back to the ancient world, where the term oligarchy was coined. One of the primary threats to oligarchy was that the oligarchs would become divided, and that one from their number would defect, take leadership of the people, and overthrow the oligarchy.

To prevent this occurrence, ancient Greek elites developed institutions and practices to keep themselves united. Among other things, they passed sumptuary laws, preventing extravagant displays of their wealth that might spark jealousy, and they used the secret ballot and consensus building practices to ensure that decisions didn’t lead to greater conflict within their cadre.

Appropriately for a scholar of the classics, Simonton focuses on these specific ancient practices in detail. But his key insight is that elites in power need solidarity if they are to stay in power. Unity might come from personal relationships, trust, voting practices, or – as is more likely in today’s meritocratic era – homogeneity in culture and values from running in the same limited circles.

---End quotation

As you can see from this passage, the emphasis is on the practices employed by oligarchs to maintain their own power and position--as contrasted with the discussion of the concept of oligarchy which we have explored above. Much the same can be said about the the seconf book by Winters.

Have a look. It strikes me that the review and the two volumes are worth exploring.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Princeton University Press, the publisher of Classical Greek Oligarchy, A Political History by Matthew Simonton, provides a description of the book and a link to the opening chapter in pdf.

Have a look:

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11013.html

It would seem that this volume deserves some detailed scholarly attention.

H.G. Callaway

I think:The individuals is a group want to improve their survival ability. So,they attempt to provide an organization to help them. First they look to a selected individual (monarchy, dictator). Soon they learn they individual is more concerned with his family than their's. Well, as long as they ride on the king's successes. This degenerates to the grandson (an idiot) with an army. oops. So, take out the inheritance construct. This continues over the centuries to have larger governments and societies. But each has long term problems wherein he leaders degenerate first into accumulating power to the leaders and producing good benefits to the basic contributors. So, democracy degenerates to the other forms without solving the fundamental issue. So, the prime issue is how to organize so the basic contributors (not freeloaders) can have their survival and their progeny's survival enhance - the true goal of all forms of government.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear ___ & readers,

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.

As a convinced federalist in the U.S. context, though, I'm inclined to say that the kind of system you mention of purely "local government" strikes me as impractical. One might plausibly maintain, I think, that French government at the time of the French Revolution was overly centralized, but centralization and de-centralization are matters of degree, and matters of the problems of particular times and places as well. I think we might make a plausible case for some de-centralization in some countries and some strengthening of central government in others. In any case, I think there will be no "one size fits all," on such matters.

I fully accept Acton's dictum: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." By the way there was recently a good discussion of this on R.G.

Corruption in high places certainly tends to spread, high and low. But as you may be aware there are important roles of the U.S. federal prosecutors in this country, in cleaning up local corruption --which tends to propagate all on its own. Part of their effectiveness, in contrast to state and local prosecutors has to do with the fact that they have no stake in local society, politics and developments. This is also a reason for not moving all important politics to the federal level.

Avoiding the abuse of centralized power, by the way, depends a great deal on the citizens' willingness to stand apart, maintaining independence from the practices which recruit support to oligarchic, consolidating powers and structures. For example, someone has to run state and local government in the interest of their specific populations and not chiefly by kowtowing to larger, centralized politics. It is sometimes wisely said that the people eventually get the government they deserve.

H.G. Callaway

---a correspondent wrote----

In fact, after the end of the French Revolution, we had a chance for a fairly democratic rule. A proposition of eighteenth-century philosophers has been presented to move power down to local governments. Such a local government would cover an area inhabited by 15,000 people and there would be no higher authority over it. This was in line with the intuitive supposition that the more central the power is, the greater the dictatorship.

Monarchy seems to be of little utility for the interest of the common citizen, seems to serve only international familiar interests. No worth to maintain it.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mendez-Esteban & readers,

As you may know, the U.S. constitution forbids titles of nobility, and I think this shows the deeply republican character of the society. In spite of failings of growing inequalities, we like to think its a meritocracy. That's the ideal at least.

The the value placed on republican thought is perhaps even higher in France, but both the U.S. and France have revolutionary traditions--which I think are not without their difficulties.

In Spain, as I understand the matter, the contrast of monarchy and republic has taken other historical paths; and I take it that "republican" has quite distinctive connotations in Spain due in no small part to Franco and the Spanish Civil War.Likewise, the term "republican" in the U.K. takes on more negative connotations in view of the history of Irish "troubles."

Since you take a stance against monarchy, I wonder if you can say anything about the general persistence of (limited, constitutional) monarchy in Europe. How do you understand this general phenomenon? What are the differences and similarities among constitutional monarchies in Europe, and why do they persist? Do they anywhere serve a legitimate purpose? If so, what sort of public purposes do they serve--and why is Spain different in your opinion? Is there also an "official" nobility in Spain --some sort of official class representation?

What are the plausible alternatives to monarchy in Spain, and how do the Spanish people understand the Spanish monarchy? Does it represent an excessive concentration of power to the Spanish people? Does it have any significant relationship to the problems of oligarchy?

It seems that most people reading this thread of discussion simply do not know enough about Spanish politics to intelligently address you various complaints.

H.G. Callaway

Let me think about it. I will say something to explain better. But I give you an advance.

Although I have put some posts that sufficiently explain merely that monarchies serve their own familiar interest, I cannot ensure that because I don´t belong to any monarchy. But it seems that they, all of them, are family. A big international elitist family.

I really can´t ensure anything, or few things, even in corruption purposes, although enough published in many papers and internet. That is why I never do any acussation. This is not my role.

I just put what is already published and I do some coherent reasoning as a result, just that, without any proof. I don´t take a stance against monarchy itself, as a concept, if it demonstrates that it is good. But even Aristotle seems to put the example of monarchy to illustrate the tendency to corruption and tyranny.

The persistence of monarchies in Europe is a matter of tradition and also a matter of that they are specialist on remaining on power, and they have a lot of people surrounding that are also interested on being benefited and remain benefited, and also are specialist on remaining on power.

In my case, I have passed almost 52 years without any favour, and I feel comfortable with that (If I have job, of course, which is not guaranteed in Spain, it is almost a luxury nowadays), (during all my carreer I had job, although I had problems often because people don´t like others that don´t belong to their family, but suddenly I started to find more and more problems).

It is amazing, the audacy of people that feel protected by families in Spain, in contrary, people unprotected don´t have anything, and surely feel bad about this false security of this people under daddy protection. I think this have a name, I don´t know if flattery, or braggery or stupidity or maybe all of them. Surely people unemployed don´t find this attitude funny. Many of them want to command other people when they are not able even to command their own life (they do what they are told to do in everything).

I like my way of living, and I am not going to start being favoured at this stage of the film, neither I like to be surrounded by favoured people. Also I am not going to move a finger for a system like that.

To think on alternatives to monarchy is not my role also, but I can think on a system similar to the USA one, with power people changing each eight years, that way you ensure more cleaness. Also, a system where institution does work properly, judges do their role. An that is not corrupted. This is normal, I am not saying anything strange.

Think only that corruption is incompatible with future, sooner or later the whole system will fall with all of us on board.

Currently there is already a lot of people in Spain without work and without future. Nobody seems to see that, just to save their skin. This is intelligent?.

The idea of royalty must have some merit. See the "royalty" being developed in the US as the powerful families reproduce from generation to generation.

Dear John, Howard, Carlos & readers,

First I must thank you very much for your very interesting points and suggestions on the theme of this discussion.

I agree with John sentence saying that the individuals are in a group which wants to improve their survival ability. I will even go further on saying that which was in need to be explained is the nature of human sociability and I will develop this theme a little later.

I clearly understood that Howard is a convinced federalist in the U.S. context, and that is why the kind of system of purely “local government” strikes him as impractical. However he recognizes the abuse of centralized power and that someone has to run state and local government in the interest of their specific populations. Again I think that his ideas of government are too much linked to Aristotelian logic and may be some other ideas may lead him to change his convictions.

For Carlos, I agree that the persistence of monarchies in some European countries is a matter of “that they are specialists on remaining on power”. Is this prevalence eternal or is it possible to change it? I will try to go further on this discussion of political power to see its roots in a more general view of human societies.

I think that what needs to be explained is the nature of human sociability and that the state with its political and religious organization simply appears as an aspect of it that cannot stand alone. For example early states such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and so on, the ‘religious’ and the ‘political’ were inseparable.

The paper by Maurice Bloch (2008) is worth to be cited in this discussion. He distinguishes two parts of this human sociability: the transcendental social consisting of essentialized roles and groups; the transactional social that occurs side by side with the transcendental social. This kind of duality is necessary for him to explain human behaviour.

For example he explains the apparition of the bizarre institutions of contemporary European monarchies, about which Carlos complained, by saying: “when the state, having confiscated a large part of the transcendental social so as to create its own ordered pseudo totality of cosmic order, then collapsed, a totalizing transcendental representation, without its political foundation remained, floating in mid air, so to speak.”

I think that this approach needs more attention in this discussion, and I will be very happy to have your comments on it.

Reference:

Bloch, M. (2008). Why religion is nothing special but is central. Philosophical transactions: Biological Sciences, 203 (1499), pp. 2055-2061.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

Just a short correction. I don't see much connection between U.S. constitutional federalism and Aristotelian logic. Perhaps you'd care to explain?

In any case, I do not accept Aristotelian logic. I do, of course, appreciate his contributions. Aristotle figures in my notes chiefly as an international, philosophical "common denominator" of sorts. As I've put it, the "common sense" of Western civilization --specifically, say, the ethics, Politics, and maybe the psychology?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Again I think that his ideas of government are too much linked to Aristotelian logic and may be some other ideas may lead him to change his convictions.

Dear Howard & readers,

I thought that you were not so opposed to Aristotle thought when you wrote for example: “I think that there is, indeed, a significant similarity between the Aristotelian concept of oligarchy, and the concept of corporatism as I’ve outlined it.” However I agree with you that Aristotle figures in your notes chiefly as an international, philosophical "common denominator" of sorts.

But the question I developed is not here. I was trying to explore and not to impose other ways of thinking about politics, which are quite different to Aristotle’s ones. Do you agree with that?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

I notice that you make no comment on your earlier notion of a connection between the federalism of the U.S. constitution and Aristotelian logic. May we assume that you have given that up? Small difference in logic and in logical theory will hardly make any substantial difference in politics or political theory. The chief exception being, perhaps, the modern attention to the logic of relations --which is a quite significant advance --dating to the late 19th century.

One might have expected some serious antagonism to the federalism of the U.S. constitutional system? Your related comment seemed entirely out of the blue.

Your question, again, is:

Is the distinction Aristotle made between monarchy, oligarchy and democracy always true?

That's an interesting question and I have made good efforts to follow it up. I continue to hold that attention to Aristotle is useful in the present context of debates and discussions of political problems. I do not believe that anyone here on this thread of discussion is in a position to be able to impose any particular way of thinking about politics and political theory. Given your reference to and interest in Aristotle's Politics, it seems reasonable to assume that further explorations will continue to usefully relate to Aristotle.

Right?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

But the question I developed is not here. I was trying to explore and not to impose other ways of thinking about politics, which are quite different to Aristotle’s ones. Do you agree with that?

Dear Howard & readers,

I have not given up our comments on the notions of connection between the federalism of the U.S. constitution and Aristotelian logic and I will be very happy to see them continuing. But I also wanted an exploration of other ways of thinking about politics. I was very happy to have your opinion for example on anarchy and purely local governments as they appeared to you as impractical or not a form of government. However, I found Cecilia Lewis Kausel detailed discussion about the concept of anarchy very informative and interesting. Let the others say what they want to say, without narrowing the frame of the discussion.

Daniel

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

I take it that I am incapable of "narrowing the discussion," on this thread or elsewhere on RG; and this seems a very strange notion. As I think everyone is well aware, no one of us can control the contributions of others. Still, each of us may influence the course of the discussion --at best by explicit argument and rational persuasion. Right?

Aristotelian logic is perhaps best understood as a logic of exposition of a (presumably) settled science. Modern logic, in contrast is better thought of as a logic of inquiry and research, since it opens broader hypothetical explorations. I recommend the latter. I take it that a logic of inquiry is more appropriate in approaching the federalism of the U.S. constitution. Its an open construct, flexible and resourceful. There is always a living tension in the balancing and counter-balancing of the various "checks and balances," the three branches of the federal government, powers of the states and localities, federal vs. state law and policies, etc. In addition, constitutional doctrine is elaborated through traditions of court interpretations and applications of the federal and state constitutions--so that there is more to it than the original written documents. One must eventually read the judicial decisions and arguments. What is, or is not, constitutional, in consequence, is often enough an open question. Lawyer and parties to disputes are always busy with the problems --especially those arising from conflicts between state and federal law and policies.

I also read Kausel's contribution with interest --as ever.

As a general matter, my observation is that the radical character of local (or national) opposition is typically proportional to the rigidity of the establishment.

Kind regards,

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway:

Rigidity of establishment is ensured as they fight to the death to remain in power. The only solution is to identify them and apart them from power, otherwise they would go on and on with it. In case of monarchies it is clear.

But, in USA also there is an establishment, performed by families of power, and big companies owners, etc.. that move the threads in the shadow. Cleaness of the system is ensured only at some level by changing people each eight years.

Tendencies to tyranny appear, not only in monarchies, but also in democracies with power oligarchies established, (they are almost kings, and they are friends of kings). Even tendencies to badness and nazism are unbelievably growing.

How can this be corrected?. I think that giving effective power to the people to choose people and judges in power and with clean institutions.

It is crucial the role of the judges in pursuing corruption and oligarchies established in the shadow. They must be pursued as criminal organizations, international criminal organizations with the aim of controlling, seize and steal states and manage states and people to their wish (not following the rule of law).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mendez-Esteban & readers,

Partly based on the model of the American Gilded Age of the later 19th century, I would say that there are generally two steps involved in cleaning up corruption --including oligarchy.

The first step depends on identifying the prevalent patterns of corrupt practices, which tend to mutate from time to time. Exposure is usually conducted by means of investigative journalism and information is then passed on to the public prosecutors. Both elements of this first step require some public support and above all independent public prosecutors.

The second step involves regulation and/or de-centralization (e.g., anti-trust action) aimed at major institutions (public or private) sponsoring corruption or benefiting from it. Again, one may suspect that the kinds of institutions involved may change from one period to another.

Much more could be said, of course, but that's how I see the matter in outline. There is bound to be a lot of noise in the needed signals.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Carlos, Howard & readers,

I entirely agree with you Carlos that tendencies of tyranny appear in democracy with power oligarchies established, like in the U.S.A.

May I recall you the strikes in the nineteenth century, like the 1886 Haymarket riot in Chicago, which lead to the international workers’ day on May 1, and which Howard may know better than us. These workers were asking for an eight-hour work day while they worked over ten-hours by day, during six days work week. They had against them the capitalists which can use anti-union measures, such as police firing on the crowd and legal proceedings of justice which lead to the execution of four innocent victims. I will not detail here this fight between workers and capitalists, but it continued all other the world.

Your last post describe just the same thing occurring to day. The ways Howard gave us to avoid this may be useful, but are they really as poweful as to avoid this capitalist power?

Daniel

Dear Daniel Courgeau.

The fight of workers against capitalist for workers rights is not the same issue than the fight against criminal oligarchies.

Workers fight against capital but many of them are bought by capital, at the point that they act as an oligarchy, syndicalist oligarchy belonging to the left wing oligarchy, in charge of favouring theirs. And they get it. (Some of them didn´s study anything and have work, when there are people with high level studies without work, I have brothers with high level career without work and many of my colleagues don´t have work).

Some syndical leaders in Spain earned more than 100000 Euros. /year. Some syndicalist go to the office every day to chat. They do nothing.

This man earn more than 180000 euros and he is syndicalist:

https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/02/17/economia/1329476895.html

Nowadays we see, not the dictature of proletary, but the dictature of mediocrity. People want to be what they are not, including syndicalist, who have been favoured during 40 years.

The draughtsmen want to be engineers, the nurses want to be doctors, etc. This world upside down is highly supported by left wing and bought and favoured and protected syndicalism which belongs to the left wing oligarchy or family.

This "organization upside down" and completely and criminaly out to the rule of law, and to any international law, is coherent with, " L'État, c'est moi".

People with problems nowadays is the middle class. And many of the oligarchies in power seem to want to fight middle class, with traditional values and catholic, unbelievably and incomprensibly.

This is not a simple question to answer. First the initial regime typology of Politics 3 and at the start of Politics 4 breaks down and is replaced by a much more nuanced understanding of the politeia/regime, one that is framed on the claim of justice that defines the regime. There he argues that an oligarchy is not defined by the fact that those who are ruling are few but that their governing principal is that those who have wealth rules in the city. Number becomes accidental.

Also Politics 4-6 presents even a more complex presentation of the politeia and how it works. That not only is there variation between types but also variation within type as well. Also Politics 6 suggest that even in this complex model is additionally shaped by the character of the multitude or elite that defines or rules the given regime.

Dear Carlos & readers,

It is evident that capitalism had changed from what it was in 1886. But I think that its new forms are very similar to and even more dangerous than 1886’s capitalism.

Did you ear about the just published book by Shoshana Zuboff, Harvard Business School professor emerita, The age of surveillance capitalism? We will have to learn about this novel form of economic and social power represented by the GAFA and some tech behemoths, which had emerged as the leading explicators of surveillance capitalism. According to her, surveillance capitalism distinguishes from its individual forebear as a new economic order that claims human experience as a free source of raw material. The billion dollars profits of Facebook and Google are built on a general accounting of our lives. Surveillance capitalism is also “a parasitic economic logic”, “a rogue mutation of capitalism”, “a new collective order based on total certainty” and “an overthrow of the people sovereignty”.

Do you agree with this analysis of our society?

Daniel

Also, there needs to be a clear understanding that while what characteristics oligarchy is more about the focus and principle of the Regime being tied to wealth and less about the few-ness off the rulers. Yet, for Aristotle the question of the few-ness of the rulers, as opposed to them being many, is a factor that moves regime towards them becoming more oligarchic in character.

This is to say that one regime type, may have it in it forces, institutions, or parts of the community that move the community and the regime towards another regime (similar to the character and way of life of those forces, institutions, or parts). Thus all regimes are mixed or blended in fact, because most communities are composed of a wide variations of groups (either multitudes or elites) that will either move the direction towards they way of life they espouse or value.

Now others in this discussion have gone beyond the question asked and while I have thoughts I thought to remain on the originating question.

Another issue is the problem of kingship or monarchy as a political form. Politics 1.1, suggest that strictly speaking kingship and political rule differ in kind. That why monarchical rule exists among the forms of rule types that occur in the political environment, strictly speaking that form represents something that is pre-political. This echos in the Roman distinction between Rex/kingship and republic (respublica which is the best Latin translation for politeia). Kingship is a early form of rule, that will often survive in more political forms of regimes, as an office or symbolic function.

As for tyranny..... Politics 4.4, 4.5, 6.4, points that extreme forms of democracy and oligarch, where the rule of law is replaced by the decree of the ruling part, will behave as and even appear as a tyranny. Thus Aristotle and his connection between the charasmatic demagogues, the demise of the rule of law, and mass democracy and the rise of democratic tyranny not only predated the warnings of The Federalists and Tocqueville, he also prefigured Weber's "leader-democracy".

Dear Clifford & readers,

Thank you very much Clifford for your precisions on Aristotle thinking in the different books of its Politics (I to VIII). In order to ask a simple question, I did not take into account this evolution of his thought, while developing his ideas on politics, but I think that it is of interest in this discussion to understand how it prefigured our modern ideas on politics.

However, do you think that other forms of government not developed in Politics, can occur and if yes how and why may them occur?

Daniel

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Courgeau & readers,

In the U.S., we also have another legal institution which has proved itself useful in fighting corruption. This is called the "Grand jury." A Grand jury can be federal, state or local--corresponding to the three levels of law and prosecution.

Here is part of a backgrounder which the BBC supplied to their readers:

What is the purpose of a grand jury?

A grand jury is set up by a prosecutor to determine whether there is enough evidence to pursue a prosecution. In legal terms, it determines whether probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed. In order to come to this conclusion, the jury is given investigative powers. It can issue subpoenas to compel people to testify or hand over documentation relating to the case.

Members can also question witnesses, who are not allowed to have lawyers in attendance.

Why is it in the legal system?

It is in the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

Who is on a grand jury?

Members of the public. The US courts handbook says they "are drawn at random from lists of registered voters, lists of actual voters, or other sources as necessary". Jury members may be called for duty for months at a time, but need only appear in court for a few days out of every month.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40823390

Just as the House of Representatives is the popular branch of Congress, the jury is the popular branch of the judiciary, and the national guard contrasts in a similar way with the regular armed forces, the Grand jury is the popular element of the public prosecutor's office. I have read of cases, in which the Grand jury simply got rid of the public prosecutor, thinking him useless, and did the all work itself --including investigation of corruption and indictments which resulted in convictions and jail terms.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote--

The ways Howard gave us to avoid this may be useful, but are they really as powerful as to avoid this capitalist power?

What do you mean by other forms? Most forms are variations on the very core regime types. There is nothing new in these matters, all possibilities are present, if only implicitly, in Aristotle's account of regimes.

I attach a paper I gave at a conference in Poznan on regime models contra Aristotle's account of politeia.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Bates & readers,

One question of interest, concerning Aristotelian regimes and "forms," is, specifically, whether corporatism (or its variety of syndicalism) may fairly count as a "form" of oligarchy.

I noticed your remark that in Aristotle, oligarchy is less a matter of numbers than one might initially take it to be. "Rule by the few," is only an initial characterization and later supplanted.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

Corporatism is less a political regime, but the economic model that particular regime types will adopt and others will not. Too so with Welfare State Liberalism is such a economic model as well.

The question of the economy is sub-political, that is below the political. This does that mean to say or suggest that the economy and the economic model will have no influence or impact on the character of the regime type. Rather, it means that the economic system is framed and defined by the political system. This will drive the economists mad, but Aristotle in his teaching on Politics is clear about this--this is why politics is the architectonic science.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Bates & readers,

Thanks for your reply.

I take it that Aristotle moved toward thinking of oligarchy as rule by the few rich --in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good. In contrast, "aristocracy" would still be rule by the few--"the best."

If I imagine an ancient oligarchy as a regime, then I imagine it as rule by the heads of great families, usually landholders, with perhaps a few rich merchants added in--again, in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good. Doesn't this suggest incorporation of a "economic model" into a regime type?

If so, then corporatism would seem to amount to a form of oligarchy if and when the corporatist entities "rule in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good." The contemporary complaint seems to be that the international economic elites are turning from "aristocracy" (or "economic elite domination" to use the term in wide circulation), toward rule by large-scale (corporatist) institutions in their own self-interest and ignoring the common good. How would you react to this argument? I take it as true that the advent of oligarchy is a political failure--so that one could still maintain that politics is the "architectonic science."

Also, I am wondering what you would say about the idea that Aristotle's "degenerate" regime forms (tyranny, oligarchy, and extreme democracy), are corrupt forms--since they "swerve" away from concern with the common good. . Any thoughts on this? I am aware of variations in the translation of the Greek.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

The question of the economy is sub-political, that is below the political. This does [not] mean to say or suggest that the economy and the economic model will have no influence or impact on the character of the regime type. Rather, it means that the economic system is framed and defined by the political system. This will drive the economists mad, but Aristotle in his teaching on Politics is clear about this--this is why politics is the architectonic science.

Interesting discussion. Following answers.

IMHO all forms of federal government can help citizens thrive and all forms have shown themselves corruptible. So the long-term problem is not which form to use, but how to replace a form when it ceases to help the citizens? I think just changing from one form to another does any good.