Talk:Oligarchy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

What word?

The last sentence reads: "A form of this word has entered Latin American Spanish and Portuguese from the French. Its use has been modified there to include governmental and military officials, both those who are effective and those who for whom a job was made, besides the rich" (emphasis added). Is the word, oligarchy? If so, why not say so. Also, what forms of the word were entered in the other languages? I want details!!!! This is very confusing.

I also find that sentence confusing. Lennart.larsen 09:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

1984

1984 is not mentioned among the fictional oligarchies although the movement of engsoc (excuse mistakes) is refered to as a "collective oligarchy" any comments? (82.46.12.240 03:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

1984 is abook based on total government control and I see that we, the United States is headed in that direction. With the Patriots Act, and other types of surveilance, what is going to stop the government from spying on us all the time? (JKD-)

Malaysia

The brief sentence citing Malaysia having an 'illusory' democracy while in reality being an oligarchy is an unfounded assertion, not a statement of fact. (noisms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.91.122.5 (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Daily Show

Not for the article (non-notable), just for your pleasure.

The Carpetbagger - Twin Cities, Worthy of Topping the Last Act - NYTimes.com - [At The Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.]: "... Although everyone is all smiles — “The Daily Show” has a billboard near the airport that says “Welcome, Rich White Oligarchs” — there are some sharp edges on the welcome mat. ..."

^_^ 96.50.20.58 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oligarchy vs. monarchy

This section has an obvious error in the first line, which needs to be corrected. I think I can infer the spirit of the section, however - Power can move from a single person/family (monarchy) to a cabal of nobles or businessmen (oligarchy), using the Magna Carta as an example. This power shift could be further expanded upon, showing a transfer of power to either a majority (democracy) or a breakdown of power (anarchy) if examples of those could be found.

216.254.28.72 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The original content is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oligarchy&oldid=240967312 and was vandalized and reverted several times. I know little of the subject matter, but that's the most recent version i can find with complete sentances in, so i've restored it. Do feel free to improve it if it's incorrect or lacking, as i say i'm not an expert, just trying to tidy up a bit. Provider uk (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 216.254.28.72 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When I read this section, I thought the following paragraph, although inherently interesting, was either out of place altogether or lacking a suitable link from the preceding material - "In an aristocracy, a small group of wealthy or socially prominent citizens control the government. Members of this high social class claim to be, or are considered by others to be superior to the other people because of family ties, social rank, wealth, or religious affiliation. The word "aristocracy" comes from the Greek term meaning rule by the best. Many aristocrats have inherited titles of nobility such as duke or baron." I notice it was absent in the version quoted on this page as "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oligarchy&oldid=240967312" Mediatenz (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2009

What's the difference between Oligarchy and Timocracy?

It seems that a Timocracy might? allow anyone to become part of the elite if they can make enough money, but that an Oligarchy would restrict that?
~ender 2008-11-29 12:01:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)

Not exactly. Allow me to quote Timocracy: "Constitutional theory defines a timocracy as either: 1. a state where only property owners may participate in government; 2. a government where rulers are selected and perpetuated based on the degree of honor they hold relative to others in their society, peers and the ruling class."

Let's use the first instance in an example. If only property owners can participate in government, you can exclude groups disallowed (either by law or implicitly) from government participation. In the case of the early United States, this would include black slaves and women, both of whom had to chip away at the system and earn the right to vote. This system was not necessarily codified as law, but was implicitly defined by the honor rank of women and colored people in that society, enforced by the higher ranking group, white men.

Oligarchy, on the other hand, does not necessarily make these distinctions. In fact, the article on Wikipedia openly states that power in an oligarchy does not necessarily translate into wealth. The Catholic Church, though substantially wealthy, is an oligarchy based upon loyalty to God, and this system would still exist even if the church were flat broke. England's royal family is exclusive to noble blood, though not necessarily to any honor system, as evidenced by its multiple ruling matriarchs even in times when women were considered second class.

Finally, timocracy is not necessarily rule by the few. If the majority of the population in a timocracy owns property, or is of sufficient social status, then the "many" are in a position to participate in government as they please.

Hope this helps! DerekMBarnes (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan one rich family controls whole country during 18 years and family is Nazarbaev's family. Every member of this family is oligarch, they divided economy of Kazakhstan among each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.54.66 (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sparta

I've had a comment via email on this article, suggesting that it should mention Sparta as a unique form of an oligarchy (a "democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy"). I've invited the correspondent to this page, but if anyone knows more about this perhaps they could consider adding it. -- sannse (talk) 13:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should be removed; "Democratic timocratic monarchical oligarchy" is nonsense in any language, and Aristotle expressly distinguishes Sparta from the oligarchies, because, among other things, the election of the Ephors [sic, in English] was a popular or democratic element. Septentrionalis 22:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excluding non member of a state from voting does not make you an oligarchy. The reasoning given in the article is nonsense, so I am taking Sparta off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.71.221 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipediarchy

Doesn't Wikipedia itself take the form of an oligarchy sometimes?... :) Nikolai35 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unavoidable. 78.88.117.116 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

According to official Wikipedia content, there is no cabal. Neil Clancy 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No; actually, it's an oligarhy :) Bigbluefish (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a member of an Oligarchy?

Is the word used Oligrat? After all we have Democrat, Plutocrat, but this is a different form of word. --The1exile 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oligarch --James S. 17:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the OED, this only refers to the ruler of an Oligarchy. Which is why I ask. --The1exile 17:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to who else? The governed? --James S. 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the governed members of an Oligarchy, the people who have no power but are still part of this system. --The1exile 20:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oligarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.79 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes Oligarchy means 'New Money'

In contradistinction to Aristocracy (as old money), or so I thought. Cursory glance reveal that Aristotle's political typology does not seem to be pertinent to this as I initially mentioned, so my mistake (I did not though edit the article, as I wasn't quite certain of this, and only noted this here in 11:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuetrality And Peacock

¿So uh, what exactly is the problems?Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland is an oligarchy?

Switzerland is precisely, on the other side, the only democratic country in the world! Only in Switzerland citizens decide about political matters, in all the other world decide their representatives instead of them and because of their immunity decide often against the interest and will of the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molny9691 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Corporate oligarchy

One of the best resources for corporate oligarchy is Bertram Gross's book 'Friendly Fascism'. He thoroughly backs his contention that it is the natural evolution of capitalism. His predictions of the future (from 1980) are very accurate. http://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-Face-Power-America/dp/0896081494 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.59.9 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference for unions was deleted because they are not corporate oligarchies. They are democratic organizations that attempt to counter the influences of corporate oligarchies.

Complete Overhaul

I feel that this article is way too short and way too biased to provide the complete meaning of an oligarchy. Perhaps we should have a committee of specialized historians who can rewrite this article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Already, I can see biases in the discussion page and in the text. I don't think that anybody can go in alone and repair the plethora of damages incurred. Can anybody consult with me on this issue?

WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical Oligarchies

What are a few historical Oligarchies and how were they brought down? Arnie Gov 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Dutch Republic, which existed between 1581 and 1795? 58.165.166.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

This whole article is ridiculous in not having a section (except the intro) to define and explain the origin of oligarchy in ancient Greece. They came up with the whole theories of the thing, after all. I know nothing about it personally, but I wish someone could come up with a better section on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.236.56 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mexico?

The portion on Mexico should be completely removed. Instead of presenting how it is theoretically a "Oligarchy", the author rants on wealth distribution. If anything, he has made a case for a Plutocracy. For much of the 20th century Mexico could be called an Oligarchy under the rule of PRI (and it's predecessor Parties) because only those affiliated with the party held power and it was nearly impossible to remove them from power because of how they had manipulated the system. However, Mexico at present time, cannot really be considered an Oligarchy since the political victories of PAN over the last decade, which changed the people who held power drastically and reformed the corrupt PRI system. I'm fairly certain the author is trying to make a case that the PAN system is Oligarchic, since they toppled PRI with the support of the upper class, but the recent PRI political victories proved that this is not the case because PAN has not rigged the system to keep themselves in power. Furthermore, Mexico, unlike many other Democracies, does not have a high number of Corporations, Brotherhoods or Fraternities who put support behind all three of the major political parties, therefore it cannot even be classed a "technical oligarchy". If this portion on Mexico belongs anywhere, it's on the Plutocracy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raszoo (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it as being both unsourced and irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree article needs overhaul

I see that this article needs a drastic overhaul, much of it seems to be describing plutocracy. "Oligarchy" is simply rule by any minority against the wishes or interests of the majority, one of the most easily recognized examples is South Africa before the year 1994 - that was an oligarchy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I question the part about "against the wishes or interests of the majority". The subjects of an oligarchy may largely be satisfied with its rule. Does Hong Kong under British colonial administration qualify as an oligarchy? South Africa has already been discussed at length.58.165.166.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

Oligarchy comes from Greek Oligos "few" and Archon "power". It means quite simply only the few have any power and the majority have none. The case isn't closed on Apartheid South Africa; it is unequivocally the classic case of an oligarchy in modern times, no matter how you might try to spin it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, most of the colonial systems which existed in Asia, Africa and part of the Americas until the 1960's (or even later) were oligarchys, and were frequently replaced by oligarchys once the colonial powers departed. 202.59.18.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

This page is not for debating the topic of "oligarchy", it's for discussing how to improve the article. We go by what can be verified by independent reliable sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect reversion and wikistalking

I strongly object to User:Cusop Dingle's following me here after a dispute. For shame! This deletion is easily verifiable and should be replaced. Npmay (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And I strongly object to this unwarranted personal attack. If the material is "easily verifiable" then why not verify it by citing independent reliable sources? This is required by a core policy. As to "stalking", this is grossly misleading. npmay (talk · contribs) is apparently a new editor whose grasp of core policies on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability seems to be less than perfect, as one would expect in an editor with only a couple of weeks experience and 30 edits in mainspace. A user's contributions may quite properly be reviewed for the purpose of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", such tidying up the mess here, as is indeed suggested by Raszoo above. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've heard similar excuses before, and I'm not interested in staying around to judge your motives. You've given me plenty of reason to doubt you already. In my experience there are far too many people who have nothing better to do than take out their frustrations on those who are trying to help. Npmay (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this answers the question which I asked here. User:Npmay is clearly not this editor's only account. A spurious resignation and mendacious accusations suggest that this user was here to cause trouble. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Says the person so offended by personal attacks. Npmay (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'm going to leave the wikihounding accusations to one side here, because neither here nor 3O in general is the venue for it. Npmay, the deletions were completely justified. He challenged and removed unsourced content (that looks like classic POV-pushing synthesis material, imo, but that's not particularly relevant at the moment). If it is easily verifiable, then by all means add it back with reliable sources. But as adder/restorer of unsourced content, the burden of proof is on you to show that such content is verifiable. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here from 30 board as well User:Npmay, I concur with the other editors here in this section. The paragraph is original research. I doubt you can find a citation for this, and if you or someone else can, please include it.Curb Chain (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The American Oligarchy

Does anyone want to write a section on it? I might given time, but I feel it should be included 101.98.139.165 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine if you can assemble appropriate reliable sources giving due weight and achieve a neutral point of view. I have just removed, again, some personal speculation based on a source that did not support the assertions made, and original research by way of synthesis of primary sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Referred to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#American_Oligarchy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this yet again. The edit summary here, that Gordon pertains to selecting law professors as a means to break "an American Plutocratic Oligarchy" as the title and text clearly indicate is simply untrue. The Gordon reference is about a claimed "oligarchy" in the selection of law professors in American law schools, meaning by "oligarchy" that law professors are disproportionately drawn from a limited range of backgrounds. It does not assert that the Unites States is an oligarchy, and does not even support the weaker assertion that "political and finance industry leadership has recently been dominated by people associated with Harvard and Yale" -- at most it might support that claim about law schools -- in which the much broader use of "oligarchy" is irrelevant to this article which is about oligarchy as a system of government. The rest of the paragraph is again original research by way of synthesis of primary sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

European Union

Considering the E.U. an oligachy has got to be a joke! All MEP are elected in regular elections. Almost all countries in the west have somewhat low turn outs. Still people are FREE to vote or not to vote. A low turnout is a very weak reason to consider a DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM an oligarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanakestlar (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed tag

I propose that tge following section be changed from this: Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "a few", and ἄρχω (archo), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next.[citation needed] To this: Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "a few", and ἄρχω (archo), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next.

There is no need to ask for citation for this sentence (Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next.), to need citation, or at least a big enough need to ask for, the way I see it, "proof" that this statement is true. There are plenty of examples, such as a diarchical form of government, which I believe should be classifyed as rule of the few. However, as I am yet to even make an account, I wanted to run this by people who do know whether this is apropriate. 198.228.228.44 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rollback of constructive edit

I rolled back the edit made because the subsequent text was made irrelevant by this edit. While the user's contribution was accurate it was not complete enough to maintain the context of the paragraph. Specifically, the removal of Ronald Regan by the user would require the subsequent sentences to reflect this removal. I do encourage this user to reedit this page with accompanying edits to the rest of the paragraph to maintain relevance and context. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

South Africa / Russia

South Africa, while undoubtedly an oligarchy, constitutes a special case due to its being based upon racism. An even better example might be Russia, which seems to have substituted a type of "mob-oligarchy" for its former autocracy. I didn't change any of the information on South Africa because it's still technically correct, even though a special case. F. Lee Horn

You're quite right, FLH. But it gets even worse: Within white South Africa, some families have dominated high-status occupations like law and the church for decades. And today, a large part of the new black political elite in South Africa belongs to the old black aristocracy: Mandela himself is Pondo royalty. That doesn't call his status as a great democrat into question, but it shows the potential for an oligarchy-within-an-oligarchy to develop. I don't know enough about Russia today to comment on that. - clasqm 11:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would almost certainly mention modern day Russia as an oligarchy. The BBC even describe the country as such. David 11:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I certainly can't argue with your familiarity with South Africa, now can I? :) As to the current situation in Russia, I'm not really sure *anyone* has enough information, including (especially?) Russians! Nice to make your acquaintence. F. Lee Horn 11:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your addition to the article is a good one, IMHO. F. Lee Horn 11:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it a albocracy? I mean the word for an oligarchy of whites, albocracy? Dustin Asby 11:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ya I think that's what it's called but it is awesome if your included in one of the few. -the dang gnome 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dang gnome (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calling South Africa an oligarchy is stretching it. Whites as a whole were too numerous to be an oligarchy, because it must have included numerous poor whites who didn't exert much control over society. If a few white families controlled the country, or even controlled the white "sphere" in the country, those would be an oligarchy. Were whites in the American South an oligarchy? No. Were the aristocratic families and plantation owners in the South an oligarchy? Maybe. Sluggoster (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that South Africa is still an oligarchy, with BEE making sure most big business has to be black owned, they have just swapped it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.46.22 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As for Russia, the word "oligarch" is a cynical Russian joke, like several of their other favorite words borrowed from Western languages and endowed with a quirky meaning: huligan, mafia, fashist (anybody I don't like), bandit, nomenklatura (the people who matter, the "Who's Who"). There's no formal oligarchy in Russia. There's a group of businessmen who have so much power they're considered a de facto oligarchy. They got their power by acquiring state industries for cheap during the lawless days after the Soviet regime fell, and appropriated real estate through intimidation. Sluggoster (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In Soviet Union every one aged 18 and older was eligible to vote. Communist Party membership was essential only if the position is within the Party itself, or can be considered 'ideologically sensitive' - education, mass media, federal government etc.Avhahn (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I have an objection to the very mention of South Africa in the article on oligarchy. As has been pointed out above, it's a poor and inappropriate example at best. What raises my hackles though is the opportunistic "racist white bashing" tone of the item. Perhaps a little history revision would be in order for those of you out there who simply don't have any conception whatsoever of the historical facts as contemporaneously recorded - by whites of course - seeing as black people in Southern Africa had no written language of their own (a reality which should be difficult to blame on the whites). But before I go about deleting the reference to South Africa in the article, I am open to a discussion. JohnSkliros (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I will admit that it is stretching it a bit to refer to Apartheid South Africa as being a oligarchy, being South African myself I know that 'white people' didn't constitute a ruling body. If anything post-apartheid South Africa is a far better example of an oligarchy with the creation of a 'black elite', made up of freedom fighters from the apartheid era and their close friends and family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.4.173 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Julian Gallow. I removed the example of South Africa as an oligarchy because it does not conform to the definition of the word, and the further discussion was simply incorrect. Much has been said above, but I will just add that there was no tacit agreement between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans. On the contrary, most English-speakers voted for a party that was fundamentally opposed to apartheid, while most Afrikaners voted for the National Party that believed strongly in apartheid and enforced it vigorously for more than 40 years. Far from a tacit agreement, there was a degree of tension between the two white "tribes" going back to the atrocities of the British during the South African War (until I removed the entire reference, the entry used the term, "Boer War," which is offensive to Afrikaners,) and the ongoing opposing views on the existence, sustainability, cost and efficacy of apartheid. However, the English- and Afrikaans-speakers worked well together when the opportunity presented itself and there was never a hint of their differences going beyond discussion, debate and voting patterns. Juliangallow (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Juliangallow, although I agree that South Africa under white minority rule is a dubious example of an oligarchy, the notion that "most English-speakers voted for a party that was fundamentally opposed to apartheid," etc. is one of the enduring myths about South Africa. During much of the history of the co-existence of the English- and Afrikaans-speakers in South Africa, English-speakers were as enthusiastic supporters of segregation as Afrikaners were, and much of apartheid had its origins in British colonial policy, with precedents being set by Cecil John Rhodes's Glen Grey Act of 1894 in the Cape Colony, the denial of the vote to blacks and Indians in the overwhelmingly English-speaking colony of Natal (as well as the Boer republics), Sir Theophilus Shepstone's Native Reserves policy in Natal (precursor of the Bantustans), Lord Milner's South African Native Affairs Commission in the post-Boer War period, the introduction of race-based urban areas under the United Party at the behest of the English-speakers of Durban (precursor of the Group Areas Act), segregation in schools, the collusion of the English-speaking socialist and Afrikaner nationalist working classes in the Pact coalition government in the 1920's, etc. The list goes on and on. By the time the Nationalists came to power in 1948, they merely had to systematise the existing segregationist system, which owed much of its existence to the efforts of English-speaking whites. The relatively small liberal parties in the post-Second World War era (such as Alan Paton's Liberals and the Progressives) mainly drew their support from the affluent urban class, intellectuals and the clergy. For several years, the parliamentary leaders of the Progressives were both English (Helen Suzman) and Afrikaans-speakers (Van Zyl Slabbert). Most English-speakers continued to support the mildly segregationist United Party until its collapse, and Afrikaners themselves were always politically divided between UP supporters and Nationalists, which itself eventually split between the verkramptes (who left at various times to form the HNP and the Conservative Party) and the verligtes, some of whom started supporting liberal parties. The South African historian David Yudelman points out that English-speaking whites were not significantly more liberal than the Afrikaners, yet the tended to present the Afrikaner as 'the villian, the fanatic, who created or at least perfected institutionlized racial discrimination,' but were quite prepared 'to use apartheid as a pretext for indirectly expressing their culturally chauvinistic distaste for the Afrikaners while continuing to enjoy the benefits of white supremacy.' Taking contemporary developments in the rest of Africa into consideration, most African countries were ruled directly or indirectly by a small group of European colonial administrators since the carve-up of Africa by the Europeans in the 1880's, which could arguably be deemed examples of oligarchys. The African countries started gaining independence from their European colonial overlords from the late 1950's onwards, and most of these states rapidly degenerated into one-party states, military dictatorships, or new oligarchys of some kind.58.165.166.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

Poor choice of argument in examples

I believe the examples of oligarchy are poorly explained. The examples of oligarchy should refer to the definition given: "Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people ... Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next. "

This definition means we have an easy way to check whether a country is an oligarchy: check whether power is inherited amongst a few prominent families.

Take a look at the examples. China is given as an example of an oligarchy. The reason given is that power is concentrated in a small group, i.e. the General Secretary of the Central Committee, and a 7 member comittee. I believe this is a poor choice of argument. In every country power is concentrated. In the US, for instance, power in concentrated in the President, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc. In the UK it's the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. To show a country is an oligarchy, we need to give examples of public functions passed on, e.g. from father to son, within a small number of families.

The US is also given as an example of oligarchy. Again, a good choice of argument would be giving examples of influence passed on withing a few prominent families: e.g. from George Bush Sr. to George Bush Jr., from Bill to Hillary Clinton, a seat in Congress passed on from father to son, etc.

Summarized: in the list of examples of oligarchies, use arguments which refer back to the definition given in the first section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.147.8 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Princeton analysis

@Mattnad: re [1], which part of the source material do you think supports future possible "is at risk of representing" rather than "represents"? EllenCT (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The massive addition to the established US section is unwarranted, and is recentism at best. I suggest you start an RfC if you wish this major change here. Collect (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is a study spanning decades supposedly recentism? Is recentism a word? EllenCT (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, your efforts to push this study on as many wikipedia articles has been noted. Why don't you stop and discuss at United States talk where several editors are engaged and gain consensus what's appropriate? Regards. Mattnad (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you reply at Talk:Income inequality in the United States#Governance, the appropriate WP:SUMMARY article? EllenCT (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there some material in the "Princeton analysis" that is appropriate for this article? If so, editors should specify and propose edits. This thread is not about the income inequality in the US article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Yale conspiracy?

It may be interesting that Harvard and Yale are found in the c.v.s of a great many politicians and jurists -- but that has no connection with "oligarchy." Any more than Oxbridge is found in a great many c.v.s of UK politicians and jurists, etc.

In addition, concentration of wealth is not part of the definition of "oligarchy" and such figures are not actually "on point" here. Collect (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Exactly what definition are you using for the word? Do you intend to respond to my question above? EllenCT (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

c.v.s.? Please clarify. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Curriculum vitae". And (to Ellen) - no normal use of the word extends as far as the bungee cord definition being asserted, so the "definition I use" is pretty much a straw man argument.

a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

seems common. It is not

"any society where some people are considered to have more personal influence than others"

which is the "stretched meaning". There has never been any society anywhere where no one had more influence than others - dating back even to the home of democracy, Athens. Collect (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So how do you measure the extent of oligarchy, and how would that not directly correspond to how you define the term? EllenCT (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to us to "measure the extent of oligarchy" at all. Nor is it up to me to "define the term" - I told you how reliable sources define it. That is all we are supposed to do. Collect (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere the theme of this thread got lost. What is the editing concern? What improvements to the article are proposed? – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to believe that you genuinely do not see the pertinence of my question to User:Collect relative to the disputed text and await the answer. EllenCT (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to see the pertinence of your "question" so I do not have any problem with Srich having a problem. Cheers. Collect (talk)

@Collect: let me put it this way: What is your source for the assertion that a disproportionate concentration of power among Harvard and Yale affiliates "has no connection with" oligarchy? What support is there for the contention that situation does not fit the vast majority of dictionary definitions of the word? And again, what is your definition of the word? Does the concentration of power among affiliates of just a few small institutions in a nation of hundreds of millions fit that definition or not? EllenCT (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? I have found absolutely zero reliable sources linking "Harvard", "Yale" and "oligarchy." So that part is a Captain Obvious comment. As for definitions of "oligarchy", I presented what appear to be the general definitions used. In fact,the animus between Harvard and Yale is legendary. And once again my own definition of any word is not usable in Wikipedia, nor is your own personal definition of any word usable in Wikipedia. Is that clear? BTW, almost all major political leaders in the US speak at least some English - so by that token "English speaking people" make up an "oligarchy" here. :) Collect (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: that was four questions, all of them are serious, and you answered none of them. Therefore it is not clear. EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how I could make my answers any more clear -- I can not answer something which is not connected with what I write, and asking me to "prove a negative" is actually a very poor method of discussion, and one in which no one can actually take part with a straight face. Cheers. Be happy with the answers I gave, as there are no other rational answers I can give. Collect (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If the two of you could tell the rest of the community what the editing concern is, we'd appreciate it. Just what improvements to the article are at issue? It's 11 days now, and no references or proposed text changes are in the thread. (Perhaps you'd like to transfer the discussion to your user talk pages.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If I knew what her actual concern was, I would oblige you in a second. Mainly I keep stating what I already stated: The confluence of Harvard and Yale alumni in government has naught to do with "oligarchy" whatsoever, and adding such a claim makes no sense at all. :( Collect (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you've provided clarification here: #The_.22Harvard-Yale.22_text. – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Concentration of vast governing and economic power among affiliates of a few institutions among a population of hundreds of millions fits any dictionary definition of the word "oligarchy". Is there a counterexample or not? EllenCT (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

do oligarchs need to have the same opinions?

Query for what reliable sources say -- so far it appears that oligarchies may comprise sectors with disparate opinions, and that members of such an oligarchy with disparate opinions may well be in conflict with each other on those issues. Do any sources state that oligarchs specifically should hold the same opinions in order to govern? Many thinks. Collect (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That pretty much answers the question of whether you've bothered to look up the word in a dictionary. The answer is "no." Oligarchy is defined as concentration of power among elites. Plutocracy is defined as concentration of power among the wealthy. Neither require that all in power be in agreement, which is a state that practically never occurs in any situation other than absolute monarchy and dictatorships. EllenCT (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Harvard-Yale" text

United States political and finance industry leadership has recently been dominated by people associated with Harvard and Yale.<ref>Gordon, D. (June 1, 2009) [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1412783 "Hiring Law Professors: Breaking the Back of an American Plutocratic Oligarchy"] ''Widener Law Journal'' '''19''' (2010) pp. 1-29, at pp. 18-21.</ref> All nine members of the current Supreme Court attended Harvard or Yale law schools. The last member appointed to the court who was not a former student at one of those two institutions was Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by the newly elected President Ronald Reagan in 1981.<ref>United States Supreme Court (2010) [http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx "Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court"] ''supremecourt.gov''</ref> Reagan was also the last United States president who did not attend either Harvard or Yale.<ref>Success Degrees Publishing (2011) [http://www.successdegrees.com/collegeeducationofamericanpresidents.html "Where Did All The American Presidents Go To College?"] ''successdegrees.com''</ref>

Shows the text I deleted which another editor appears to regard as important to the article. Collect (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, and this is the diff: [2]. I agree with the removal. The first reference (Gordon) may be useful in a stand alone or descriptive usage. Something like "The graduates of certain universities have greater influence in politics and industry." (This is a vague paraphrase because I have not read the paper and hiring a law professor does not mean the prof is part of the leadership. Gordon may be useful because oligarchy/ is part of the title & I presume the subject of the law review article.) Adding the other refs only advances an implication about Harvard/Yale – that they are part of the oligarchy – which is not directly/explicitly stated by the other refs. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which do not support such conclusions? EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

South Africa an Oligarchy ?

I am questioning the inclusion of South Africa in this page. That Colonial and Apartheid South Africa, were ruled entirely by a white minority is a matter of historical fact, but since the whites were around 20%, that is stretching 'the few' to breaking point. I note also that there seem to be no sources for the assertion. I am certainly NOT defending Apartheid-era SA, but question whether oligarchy is an appropriate description.Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FAIR WARNING, in the absence of any sources, I intend to remove the SA section, as it has no sources. I noticed (above) that this has already been the subject of discussion. I would point out that the percentage of citizens eligible to vote in the 'Democracy' of Classical Athens was slightly LOWER than that in S.A.!Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the section as unreferenced. I suggest leaving it in till June to give more editors opportunity to provide sources. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion accepted! I'll just have to remember to come back in June.!Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed the S.Africa section as unreferenced.Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Russia/USSR ?

I'm aware that 'Russia' has many meanings historically/colloquially, but I wonder what "Despite this, income equality in Russia is better than in UK or USSR", actually means and whether this is what is actually meant. Some clarification seems in order.Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why bother finding out what was intended. It's solely about wealth inequality, which is not relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I had just come to a similar conclusion myself ... but I'll leave briefly to see what others think.Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Winters

Is cited in first paragraph under US - adding him with a quote a second time is overkill -- his opinion is already noted. Collect (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The mention of him is now in a footnote. As Gilens is now the subject of the Vox & Daily Telegraph stories, which use the term oligarchy, I think their observations (e.g., their study) will survive in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The mention in the footnote does not serve to balance the text in the main body to the effect that "Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se."

Furthermore, the concept of "civil-oligarchy" is easily important enough to require introduction in the main body. Thus, using the block quote with the prefacing sentence as I have done serves to both introduce the concept and accurately represent the gist of Gilens and Page. That is a balanced text.

Incidentally, you are aware that

Jeffrey A. Winters 2011 book Oligarchy was the 2012 winner of the American Political Science Association's Luebbert Award for the Best Book in Comparative politics.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A block quote for the mention of Winters is inappropriate. The footnoting of Gilens' mention of him is a compromise that all editors should live with. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Another reason that the quote is inappropriate is the UNDUE nature of the section. It consists of statements serving to show the US is an oligarchy. WP:BALANCE (a WP policy) requires that all views be provided. 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree that a footnote works at all here, because there are two many interrelated factors involved.

If you have a better idea for introducing the concept of "civil-oligarchy" and not biasing the presentation of the Gilens/Page paper by asserting that they don't say the US is an "oligarchy", then that would be fine with me. The media sources that describe the statements of the Gilens' paper have already been deleted, and if you add a statement that says they do't say that the US is an "oligarchy" without describing what they do say, you are imparting an interpreation to their paper that goes against what the now deleted sources represent. I will have to read the paper in full at some point.

Perhaps someone has access to Winters' book? I will try to google "civil-oligarchy", etc., when I have a couple of minutes.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for the assertion that the section is UNDUE when all of the sources used do in some way or another support the notion that the US is or is tending toward oligarchic characteristics? The sources do the talking, we just represent them in terms of NPOV, etc. Where are the sources that argue against? Many sources supporting the notion written about the Gilens' paper have, as mentioned above, already been deleted in a manner that I don't necessarily find unproblematic.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to a post on the blog Balkinization by Andrew Koppelman, entitled Winters on Oligarchy. I've got matters to attend to at present and can't devote time to this immediately.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is another academic review of Winters' book Billionaires: Oligarchy within Democracy?, including the quote

In civil oligarchies, “the single most important transformation in the history of oligarchy” (p. 208), a key shift among oligarchs’ objectives happens: as the rule of law converts property claims into property rights, enforced by the state, it is now mainly income that needs to be defended against redistributive taxation.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiny technical matter re 'Winters' quote … Winters is quoted twice, once within the citation and once as block quote.Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic section: US income inequity & influence ≠ oligarchy

Perhaps we can refocus the discussion. The US section is now tagged off-topic. E.g., the resources cited used the term "oligarchy". Per the Manual of Style WP:TOPIC, we've got to focus on oligarchy and not diverge into material such as income inequity, political influence of various social groups/classes, etc. Those topics have their own articles. Moreover, WP Policy WP:PRECISION requires us "to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article...." Once we have done so with the word "oligarchy", we've got to stick to the topic. We can't use references that fail to discuss oligarchies even if the references discuss the broader topics of income inequity, etc. If the references don't directly use the term, then they do not meet RS standards for context. – S. Rich (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In this edit [3] a quote from/or about Winters was re-added. A few problems: 1. Winters is already cited in the material (above) where he directly talks about oligarchy. (In fact, his book is cited in the footnote. I'll supply an ISBN shortly.) 2. The material and its edit say – flat out – that Gilens & Page do not term the US as an oligarchy. (You can't get much more off-topic than that.) 3. There is a quote, but does that quote come from Winter's book? (It does not.) By putting a citation immediately after the quote it makes it appear so. In that case Gilens & Page being cited incorrectly. (They have a footnote 11 at the end of the Winter's quote. The footnote for the quote from them should be for page 6 of their paper.) 4. But why are we putting their comments about Winters in the article in the first place? Winters says stuff about oligarchy, his stuff should be used directly, and it already has been used. We don't repeat material. The fact that Winters writes about oligarchy is enough. We don't need other people saying Winters writes about oligarchy. – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Strike out added on the material for which the issue is resolved. 05:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The comment serves at least two purposes:

1. Someone inserted the above struck phrasing asserting that the paper didn't describe the US as an "oligarchy" per se, by which they apparently were plagiarizing the New Yorker piece
2. The quote from the paper cites Winter's neologism "civil-oligarchy" in quotes, which is an important term in the context of an academic examination of the US political economic system at present, as Winter's term is being used by a further academic source in the examination of the topic.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the statement

The material and its edit say – flat out – that Gilens & Page do not term the US as an oligarchy. (You can't get much more off-topic than that.)

as I thought I removed that material when inserting the "civil-oligarchy" quote.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I am reverting [4] because Yellen was asked whether the US is an oligarchy. EllenCT (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And per the source she did not say "Yes". While the text has been revised to correct the question and answer, implying that she is saying yes or agreeing that the US is becoming an oligarchy is WP:SYNTH. – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The text does not "imply" anything in black and white. What is wrong with letting Yellen's words speak for themselves?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

She talks about a "trend toward growing inequality". As such, she's talking about income and wealth differences. That's all. Her words are her words, but how we use them is important. We use sources to support the topics of the articles. And the support must be direct, explicit. (Her statement might be useful in other articles about economic inequality.) If someone else has said something noteworthy about the US being or becoming an oligarchy, and does so clearly and directly, then that someone can be used. – S. Rich (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

She was responding to a question about oligarchy, and that is the salient point that is conspicuously missing from your reply, amongst other things she said, in particular, determine the ability of different groups to participate equally in a democracy.

Your reply is very close to WP:CHERRYPICKING.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) reverted and posted a very good rationale. I suggest you get consensus from other editors to include the material. From what I see, the support is lacking. (And please stop re-reverting. We are in the Discussion phase of BRD, not the re-re-re-R phase.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur's "rationale" was completely unsupported, and I have amply demonstrated that in a single edit summary, to which you have not responded at all, so I take it that you didn't read that.

I suggest that you try to gain support for deleting the consensus text. This is already far beyond an initial BRD stage. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The section is titled "Specific examples" of oligarchy. It is not titled "Specific examples of countries that might become an oligarchy." Gilens & Page do not say the US is an oligarchy, and Yellen is even farther away from making such a statement. This stuff about income & wealth inequality as being the genesis of oligarchic rule is synthesis. – S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I should have commented here, at the same time as deleting the clearly irrelevant material. Sanders' view, as an "independent" (actually, a member of the Socialist Party) member of Congress, is sufficiently significant to be included, even if it were without factual basis. His question and non-reply are not at all relevant. Comments that the US has "some of the characteristics" of an oligarchy, or may become an oligarchy, or is a "civil oligarchy", where the author distinguishes from an "oligarchy", are not appropriate for the article.

I have doubts about China; any country with a small ruling council might be considered an oligarchy, but it would be wrong if the council members were elected in free elections.

Russia may be an oligarchy, but all that has been provided is evidence of wealth inequality.

This article needs to be restricted to "oligarchy", not wealth inequality, or "something like oligarchy", "civil oligarchy", or other concepts not closely related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the "off-topic" tag. Russia is even worse than I thought. The article suggested that Putin was taking power from the "oligarchs". It did not say that he was establishing a dictatorship, but it's hard to find sources, not from Russia or neighboring countries, which do not call Putin a dictator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I unintentionally started a new section below, largely about the Sanders/Yellen quotes, apologies if this is confusing matters.

I agree that some sections are unreferenced and possibly unclear/inaccurate (notably China & Russian Fed.). I also think that the term 'civil oligarchy' needs some clarification, I disagree, I'm afraid with almost everything else said here by Arthur Rubin and SRich.Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on This article needs to be restricted to "oligarchy", not wealth inequality, or "something like oligarchy", "civil oligarchy", or other concepts not closely related. Firstly 'civil oligarchy' is Winters term for what most of us would call 'modern oligarchy', where the oligarchs operate through the laws of the state, it is one of four kinds of oligarchy described by Winters (in what is intended to be a complete history of the phenomenon … the earliest being 'warring oligarchy' where the oligarchs control their own armies … akin perhaps to 'warlords' or medieval Barons). Therefore 'civil oligarchy' is NOT off-topic, it is simply Winters' term for the modern form.

Secondly, whilst wealth inequality, in itself, is not oligarchy, writers writing about political power, frequently refer to wealth inequality, especially when that inequality is the result of changes in law or changes in tax regimes. I agree with your comment to the extent that the source must refer explicitly to the exercising of political power, rather than JUST to inequality.

BTW, I went off to the Russian Oligarchs page, hoping to find a carefully researched, lucid expositions of the 'Russian Oligarchy' - it's a mess of generalised, unreferenced comments, frequently ungrammatical or unreadable and with nobody currently working on it, so no help there! Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with you as to what Winters is saying, but it is arguably plausible. It needs further justification for inclusion.

I do not agree that "wealth inequality" plus the wealthy exercising "political power" (from the same area of the same source, to avoid WP:SYNTH) is necessarily relevant. It has be be "a small number of people", and most of the "wealth inequality" sources do not specify a small number of people. 0.1% of the United States population is not "small". And, if some such sources were to be included, sources of comparable weight that the US does not have significant wealth inequality and sources that the wealthy do not exercise disproportionate political power would be counterweights, and would need to be included in the article. I am not saying that such sources necessarily exist, but no one here is looking for them, as most think them (IMO, correctly) irrelevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Pincrete 100%. Wealth and exercise of political power can be relevant to this article when discussed in relation to their conjunction by RS. just because Yellen didn't use the word "oligarchy" in response to a question about US trend toward oligarchy doesn't mean she wasn't answering the question by talking about the ability of wealth to exercise political influence in an anti-democratic manner.

Let's see your so-called sources that claim "the US does not have significant wealth inequality" and "sources that the wealthy do not exercise disproportionate political power".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to A Rubin above: I wasn't meaning to comment either way on Winters' content, merely to record that 'civil oligarchy' IS a kind of oligarchy (I've only skimmed the first 60 pages, largely looking for a definition of civil oligarchy, so cannot comment on what else Winters has to say). I have to say that 0.1% seems pretty small to me (as a percentage if not as an absolute number), however the only way we can avoid as editors making value judgements about what is/isn't a small number, is if the source is drawing attention to the small-ness. I don't necessarily agree that there is a need for 'balance' in the way you suggest, for reasons I've given before (perhaps on Plutocracy). Briefly, the very fact that 'Some sources have argued', informs the reader that this is not necessarily the 'official' view, but is nonetheless a carefully thought through, valid point of view.Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sanders question and reply

I'm drawing everyone's attention to the fact that THERE IS a talk page! I'm afraid I cannot understand the logic of claiming that "Sanders' question and reply … … doesn't answer the question, and the public question, itself, is not noteworthy". Firstly what question could be more noteworthy in a section about the US & oligarchy than : In your judgment, given the enormous power held by the billionaire class and their political representatives, are we still a capitalist democracy or have we gone over to an oligarchic form of society?. Secondly, Ms Yellen doesn't answer 'yes' or 'no', and she does not use the word 'oligarchy' but she does clearly answer the question.

PS, there is what appears to be a quote (inset italics), but it does not appear to be attributed : (Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.) Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(1) Sander's question is about oligarchy, but we already have his opinion above; Yellen's answer is not.

(2) It's not a quote. It's apparently a paraphrase of something Winters said in his book, converted to third-person.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(1), I don't agree, the answer is a 'considered reply' expressing fears about the long-term health of the democratic process, but it is quite clearly a direct reply. I've used this analogy before, but will use it again, if I ask the doctor 'Am I going to die', he might reply 'well if you carry on smoking, drinking and partying every night you are going to put your health in very grave danger' ... I cannot see how that is not a reply to my question.

2) is obviously a case of wrong layout then.Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with Winters or layout, but solely the response of Yellen's to the question on "oligarchy". Here is a link to the deleted material.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

UbikwitThanks, but I did know the content of the deleted material. The 'layout/is it a quote ?', relates to my boldened PS above.22:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)

@Pincrete: Sorry, I missed your comment. I agree with you on Yellen's response 100%. As to the Winters point, the quote is directly from Gilens/Page referring to Winters. The quote is not from Winters, it is about Winters work regarding the US as an oligarchy, and the introduction of the concept "civil oligarchy".

I'm not sure which material was the subject of the statement regarding layout.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit Don't worry, the 'quote' is now laid out as a quote AND attributed (previously it wasn't).Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ireland and other nations

Is an Irish citizen I can diffently tell you that Ireland an oligarchy, I don't know if people agree with me or not,but it is in all but name.There should be a list IMO of countries that are.Sheodred (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also an Irish citizen and Ireland is an oligarchy. The vast majority of politicians eligible for election are interrelated, TDs sons and daughters getting either appointed office or nominations for seats has seen the initial idea of a democratic republic shift to a oligarchy.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am also an Irish citizen and Ireland is an oligarchy. It should be listed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The article as written implies that liberals cannot be oligarchs.

...the liberal wealthy cannot be oligarchs, but the conservative wealthy usually are. This would imply that the members of the Kennedy family or for that matter George Soros could never be called an oligarch, but the Koch brothers, since they are political conservatives, could be called oligarch. This is downright crazy.

In this context then, oligarch is a derogatory term used to call out wealthy political conservative who appear to be unconcerned about income inequality.

I thought an oligarch was simply a wealthy member of the ruling class. But as the authors of this article imply that an oligarch is a wealthy member of the ruling class who must ALSO be a political conservative, voted as a republican in the last election and is somehow unconcerned about the well-being of the middle class. This is horribly value-laden and inaccurate.

I am not aware that the definition of an oligarch is someone who claims to be unconcerned about income inequality. That is really stretching it, which is the core problem with the current article.

Bernie Sanders and news media outlining what he says about oligarchs is not a good encyclopedia reference source with respect to who exactly is an oligarch and who is not. Bernie Sanders is a person with a particular political bias who thinks he can get votes by saying all oligarchs are political conservatives who vote republican. Better to not reference him at all. References and citations can create more problems than they resolve especially if the author citing the reference claims that the individual being cited is correct, and especially so for politicians cited from newspaper articles. In general, this article should be purged of references to politicians statements appearing in news articles about who an oligarch is regardless of whether the politician is liberal or conservative. Labeling a conservative derogatorily as a oligarch acting only in his or her self-interest and unconcerned about income inequality is a political effort by some liberals (Bernie Sanders, for example) to appeal to voters leading into the 2016 election, and has no place in an encyclopedia.

This is what I think Wikipedia is saying as well. But my attempts to correct the problem and improve the article was deleted almost as quickly as I got it uploaded.

I've concluded that this is a futile effort on my part to even try to correct what are horrible flaws in the article, as any edit that does not reflect the current left-wing tone of the article agreeing with Bernie Sanders left-wingpolitical view for 2016--that oligarchs are all the wealthy right-wing republicans, will immediately be deleted. The only thing I can figure is that Wikipedia somehow must WANTS articles such as this to reflect a far-left political bias. My edits were not left up even long enough for anyone other than the guy who deleted them to read them. This is crazy.

I'm out of here. I'm angry about how I was treated by the editors here, given that I was actually making a serious attempt to fix what appear to be obvious flaws. Trying to do something here to fix things is a complete waste of my time. If anyone wants to talk to me I can be reached at dldebertin@aol.com

DLDebertin David Debertin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.131.67 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand what you mean. How precisely does the article imply that Liberals cannot be Oligarchs? Authorship on Wikipedia is a 'team effort', based on reliable sources (not OUR opinions). Pincrete (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is very poorly written, and advocates the liberal view that oligarchs can only be wealthy conservatives who are interested in acquiring more wealth through political office, and opposed to greater income equality. Bernie Saunders can hardly be considered an objective source of unbiased information as to who an oligarch might be.

Here is a better way.

Thus, an oligarch is a person (or family) who attempts to use wealth as a means to obtain political power, political power that is usually consistent with the person (or family’s own) self-interest. In a democracy containing oligarchs, there is nothing in the definition of an oligarch that would require the oligarch to support a particular political philosophy or political party, either liberal or conservative. Thus, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys and the Clintons could be considered oligarchs by the virtue of wealth and political power, just as the Bush family and the Koch brothers are sometimes called oligarchs.

Liberals sometimes portray oligarchs as being particularly interested in using political processes to acquire more personal wealth, and to be particularly unconcerned about income inequality, but oligarchs seeking to political power and to use their wealth and influence are often more interested in winning elections than in acquiring still more wealth. If advocacy of a particular political position such as favoring a reduction in income inequality gets voters, then that serves the self-interest of the oligarch seeking a public office as well.

In non-democratic countries, people of wealth (the oligarchs) frequently move into political positions of power and influence. But this is oligarchs tend also to rise into positions of political power in democratic nations, in part brought because it is often difficult if not impossible to run for political office without being wealthy, a consequence of the high cost of modern elections. Thus, many of the most powerful elected officials in government could be classified as oligarchs regardless of party affiliation.

DLDebertin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dldebertin (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dldebertin, firstly, I hope you don't mind, but I have moved your post HERE, in order that others can follow the conversation. Secondly, another editor has reverted your edit, because it is unsourced and merely your own opinion. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

United States / slippery slope

Can we say America is an Oligarchy? Wouter Schut

The United States was created as a "Republic of the Aristocracy". This was to protect the few aristocrats that had most of the property( wealth in those days) from the masses getting a fairer distribution of wealth through democracy. Now of course the rules have changed gradually through it's history and more democracy has been instituted. However, the major media and large press have been able to manipulate many of the electorate into voting against their own interest. The result is a move toward another guilded age: the last being the early part of the last century. The socialist programs instituted after that through President Roosevelt and pushed forward thru organized unions and other organizations finally gave rise to a majority educated middle class. This has been slowly reversing over the last 40 years as the class war against the middle class has been slowly funneling wealth to the oligarch class of people. This has resulted in increased poverty and a struggling slowly disappearing middle class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgommel (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, God has given us choices, but "We the People" no longer rule "by the people and for the people". That is the problem with America, which was founded as a "Republic", not a "Democracy". The Founding Fathers of America (by and large Christians), were very concerned that the freedoms they established (based upon God's Biblical law), would be lost and our society would degrade into an oligarchy (The rule of the many by the few) and their worst fears have now become reality, because the Rich Ruling Elite have successfully divided, and pretty soon will conquer the American people and the world, unless "We the People", WAKE UP!

The "Democracy" the Bushes and the Rich Ruling Elite want to spread around the world under the guise of "Freedom and Human Rights" is really their plan for "The New World Order" - Total control and the loss of all liberty and freedoms for everyone other than the Rich Ruling Elite and their Political Puppets in Washington and controlled police forces around the world.

The Rich Ruling Elite's plan depends upon compliance by the people and their ignorance in thinking that it matters who wins the Presidency in the next election - IT DOESN'T and hasn't since 1913, when a private rich man's group of offshore bankers stole "We the People's" right to print our own money.

Ultimately it is God who allowed this to happen, but in human terms, you should be able to see that: Whoever controls the money supply, controls the people! - The Federal Reserve (The Fed) is not Federal, does not answer to "We the People" or congress, has no Reserves and prints money out of thin air, which robs "We the People" of our wealth and freedoms and has made us slaves of the Rich Ruling Elite!

We have no representation in Washington or anyone powerful enough on the federal level to fight this evil. We need a state level "United States" revolution like we had against Great Brittan to throw all the bums out of Washington, DC.

My suggestion is "Don't vote for any incumbent (Democrat or Republican) who is running for federal office including the President, but make sure you WAKE UP AND VOTE!!!" [Howard Hazelwood - Facebook: howardhazelwood] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.196.27 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OF course its an oligarchy. While the 2 major parties may disagree on some relatively benign issues, they stand for the same things essentially. It's a combined oligarchy of corporate media, elites in corporations, and the elites in the 2 parties. Serious contenders for important seats must be boosted by the media and the donations from the corporations to win and must hold a favorable position in the media. Look at the derailment of the campaigns of the candidates for president who were denied most access to the debates. There isn't a lot of discussion on the important issues and the political slide of those in control is rather small. Both parties stand for a continued 'war on terror' though they describe their reasons or reasons to not leave in different ways. I think America is much of a secret oligarchy, since most people think its a democracy because there are two parties, but really they are much the same. Whereas in Russia there's only one party so its a more open oligarchy. —Dave

I don't believe we can accurately say that the United States is an oligarchy. The US government is a 2 party system. This fact negates a true oligarchy since in a true oligarchy all leaders in the government must always agree on policy. Oligarchies tend to fall apart if this doesn't occur. The US is an oligarchy however in the sense that the rich and powerful in congress and elsewhere will protect themselves and each other to the last breath regardless of ideological differences (at least they will if they don't have a chip on their shoulder). There are different degrees of oligarchy. OPEC and Microsoft are very good commercial examples. Most true oligarchies must be headed by VERY like minded people who share a common bond (i.e. wealth, power, military fortitude, etc.) and the government must be kept deliberately small so as to minimize any chance of dissension among its members. J. Tindall

The Early United States government resembled an oligarchy, but I doubt that most people would understand this reference. 72.128.106.136 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ergh. Well, there is a slippery slope which wasn't touched upon in the article; precisely how small does the participatory have to be to qualify as an oligarchy. Consider that roughly 100 million people voted in the United States presidential election, 2000; this, in a country of 300 million! There are maybe 140-150 mio. people with suffrage; everyone else (foreigners, children, the mentally disabled), is shut out of the system (on top of that, consider all of the other peoples elsewhere who are/were "administered" by the US (Iraq, etc.) without a say in US foreign affairs). Now, whereas we would call 45% suffrage a far cry from universal suffrage, we still have to make the call when precisely oligarchy kicks in: at 10%? 20%? What?

The article mentions "an élite" making the decisions; however, anyone under 18, resident aliens, and felons are certainly justified in thinking of the voting class as being an élite.

Now, I am unlikely to classify the US as an oligarchy in this article, but I do think the slippery slope issue needs to be addressed. samwaltz 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly could be said that the Iowa and New Hampshire voting in the presidential primary before every other state is a form of oligarchy. 76.104.132.228 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The United States is a Federal Republic lead by a President. Brittany Ka (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The ruling class in the US is too large and diverse to be an oligarchy. There are two main schools of thought (conservative and liberal) which pursue radically different policies when in power. The fact that centrists like the Clintons sometimes agree with Republicans on a few issues like NAFTA and the Iraq war does not change the fact that overall they have a different agenda and give money to different people. Saying there's a small group of people with common interests who control the country (the definition of an oligarchy) is just not true. Sluggoster (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire section discussing the US as an oligarchy is entirely inappropriate without references from reputable sources. Wikipedia shouldn't be a venue for individual editors to voice their opinions. Create a blog for that, if you must. Make references to respectable experts or drop the section. -jplflyer

Despite the fact that the United States has a 2 party system and elected officials I believe that it fits the description of an oligarchy provided in the first sentence of the article because most of the people in high positions of power (ie presidents etc.) are related. That's not an opinion, its a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.71.2 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of these posts - capitalism is inherently incompatible with the given definition of an oligarchy. The capitalist system is fundamentally based on choice, whereas an oligarchy implies a system where a small group of people rule and retain power against a population's will. While it is arguable that the U.S. economy is not truly capitalist in nature, our government and economy are still more based upon freewill and choice than this passage lets on. This reference and quote are both obvious bias by the author and should be removed. Expanding and focusing on Russia or apartheid South Africa would be more appropriate. - Watchful Greek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchful Greek (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current part about the U.S. as an oligarchy, is not encyclopedic in nature. I do not believe that it conveys a generally recognized understanding of an oligarchy There certainly are valid academic arguments that the Early Republic was a timocracy, or that in antebellum America the South and then Federal government was controlled by a Plantocracy (Both of which can overlap with the definition of oligarchy). However, referring to the modern U.S. as an oligarchy is largely a pejorative use of the term (which correct or not should have it’s own section). Furthermore, a Marxist writer should generally not be considered an unbiased source on the U.S form of government (as Marxist theory and the theory of a constitutional federal democratic republic are not necessarily compatible).

I welcome discussion on these points, but I am seriously considering a massive edit of this article.--24.250.196.34 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Information now becoming widely available shows compelling evidence that suggests the United States, while formed as a Republic, is now illegally operated by a group of international bankers. This would be considered oligarchy. 128.171.40.85 (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But not because its a 2 party system, but because of the very structure of the representative democracy. I would rather say that in the whole world reigns oligarchy, because almost everywhere reign parliamentary democracy. See dudes, I know you all use that kangoo argument of american democracy, we are the protecters of democracy and freedom, we have brought democracy to many corners in the world, yes, yes, all I have already heard. The bottom line but is the fact, that you dont know what really means democracy and with what sense it was originally invented. Democracy means ´reign of the people´ it was invented originally only in form of direct democracy, a system of direct participation of the population on the decisionmaking about questions of public interest. Yes, direct, nothing of kind of bullshit like house of representants or parliament or whatever other name given to a fraud dolly oligarchic institution. But, later, in the times of Rome, the roman squirarchs with their giant power and influence invented a very sly system of government based on creating lies, a guised totality ruled by a small group of privileged, ruthless, crookish criminals, who adjudicated in the name of the will of the people. Only many centuries later, the oligarchs decided, that it is too dangerous that they are direct the representants because of the unhappiness of the masses, so they decided that it is better a bit back up and organize in intervals elections of hired actors, goofers, that will allure the peoples votes with empty oaths and then this actors will be guided by the oligarchs through their inconsilleble influence and wealth. A very clever puppet show. Whatsoever, representative democracy was built in that way, that in the system doesnt exist any collateral against the exploiting of the decisionpower the representants. And because of this fact and the indefatigabillity of the representants, this system of representative "democracy" will ever on the end be degenerated into a monstruous tyranny, parliamentary totality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.64.178 (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

From, RH Ralls:

Good points.

I will add that quoting a Marxist in defining oligarchy will never produce anything resembling accuracy; you just get a typical Marxist Fallacy. The United States has never been an oligarchy: the Marxist Sophist typically renders a fact of simple reality as though it were a legal feature of the state, which is the standard Marxist Fallacy here appearing. In the United States a complete pauper (Abraham Lincoln, for one) can by his own merits and energy go from a rail-splitter to President. No act of law limits the members of government to any one class or group and never has under the United States. The United States was a Representative Republic, and at least to a titular extent still is today. The Dual Representation established by the original Constitution was not an oligarchic establishment, either, since there was no legal limit as to whom the government of a state could appoint to the Senate to represent it in the Federal Legislature. An oligarchy would be enshrined by law, not by an out-growth of human reality.

The quote of the Marxist Sophist should be expunged for its vacuous stupidity and as nothing more than the inane propaganda it is. It is a discredit to Wikipedia that erodes its authority by bringing up legitimate questions as to both its accuracy and objectivity.

RH Rails fails to recognize that oligarchies are not only constitutional but can also be non-constitutional and extra-legal in nature. Given this, the United States might be in effect a non-constitutional oligarchy while being a constitutional republic in name. AlecGraf (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is an Oligarchy one of the best ways to determine the likelihood is to look at income inequality, which is greater today in the united states then in the 1920's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGlockin (talk • contribs)

I think this should be decided by those with a little more knowledge then the amateur free market experts here. Most academics agree that the United States is an Oligarchy, there have been numerable studies done showing it is. Most of those opposed to the idea are clearly upset(for whatever reason), have a chip on their shoulder, etc. That is not reason to remove the article. We need moderator action for people trying to vandalize the wiki.

Was there ever any movement on this? Seems to me that if a select few corporate identities can easily buy elections & sway "public opinion" to the point of defeating true public sentiment then you might have a problem. Brunnjon (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Buying elections or fixing elections outright would easily lead to someone getting caught. Most politicians are influenced by jobs or gifts in the private sector, or often are from families that work in high places for the elite class and are easily influenced by their agenda or direction. We are a Democracy on paper, run by Corporations and special interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonati (talk • contribs) 07:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)