background preloader


Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), 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 typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term. Throughout history, oligarchies have been tyrannical (relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist) or relatively benign. History[edit] Athenian techniques to prevent the rise of oligarchy Manifestations[edit] Forms of government and other political structures associated with oligarchy can include aristocracy, meritocracy, military junta, plutocracy, stratocracy, technocracy, theocracy and timocracy. Corporate oligarchy[edit]

Bernie Sanders: they are "Hell bent on destroying the middle class and creating an Oligarchy" Crossposted at The Progressive More from Bernie Sanders . . . (T)he truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Bold text and italics added by the diarist The average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. And, as Bernie Sanders so points out, the richest 400 families in America are richer than ever. Now, I would argue that we already have an Oligarchy now, but certainly Bernie Sanders is already aware of that. So what happens when a few people have more money than medium sized countries? From, where Billionaires are applauded as the Randian heroes they imagine themselves to be. George Lucas? Here is yourTop Ten wealthiest plutocrats in America circa 2009 That is why I have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act (S.3533).

Elysium (film) The film takes place on both a ravaged Earth, and a luxurious space habitat called Elysium.[5] It explores political and sociological themes such as immigration, overpopulation, health care, exploitation, the justice system, and class issues.[6] In 2154, a minute number of people reside on a luxurious space habitat called Elysium and the vast majority on an overpopulated and devastated Earth. While those on Earth are policed by ruthless robots, Elysium's citizens live in absolute comfort and regularly use medical devices called Med-Bays to cure any disease and injury. Max Da Costa (Matt Damon), a former car thief, and now a parolee, lives in the ruins of Los Angeles and works at an assembly line for Armadyne Corp, a company which supplies Elysian weaponry as well as the robots which police Earth. Spider agrees to get Max to Elysium if he steals financial information from Carlyle. To assist him, Spider's doctors surgically attach a powered exoskeleton to Max.

Iron law of oligarchy History[edit] In 1911 Robert Michels argued that paradoxically the socialist parties of Europe, despite their democratic ideology and provisions for mass participation, seemed to be dominated by their leaders, just like traditional conservative parties. Michels' conclusion was that the problem lay in the very nature of organizations. The more liberal and democratic modern era allowed the formation of organizations with innovative and revolutionary goals, but as such organizations become more complex, they became less and less democratic and revolutionary. Michels formulated the "Iron Law of Oligarchy": "Who says organization, says oligarchy. At the time Michels formulated his Law, he was an anarcho-syndicalist.[3] He later became an important ideologue of Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, teaching economics at the University of Perugia.[4][5] Reasons[edit] Michels stressed several factors that underlie the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Implications[edit] Examples and exceptions[edit]

Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism Background[edit] The term "oligarchical collectivism" refers not only to the Party's ideology of Ingsoc (English Socialism) but also to the ideologies of the other two states (Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia; in Eastasia, "Death Worship" or "Obliteration of the Self"). Winston reads two long excerpts establishing[2] how the three totalitarian super-states – Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia – emerged from a global war, thus connecting the past and the present, and explains the basic political philosophy of the totalitarianism that derived from the authoritarian political tendencies manifested in the first part of the twentieth century. That the three "opposing" ideologies are functionally identical is central to the revelations of The Book.[original research?] Contents[edit] Chapter I[edit] Ian Slater writes that Goldstein goes beyond George Orwell's beliefs in earlier work, such as A Clergyman's Daughter, in which the Middle makes a pretence of believing in equality. Chapter III[edit] Author[edit]

The Case Against Libertarian Paternalism The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism, by Mark D. White, Palgrave Macmillian, 150 pages, $19.98. Selling a big gulp Dr. Pepper can land you in court, but a Diet Coke is just fine? That would have been the law of the Big Apple had Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s now kyboshed attempt to “nudge” New Yorkers away from sugary drinks been successful. Then Justice Milton Tingling struck down the initiative as arbitrary and capricious, and New Yorkers danced in Union Square to celebrate the right to drink what they want. But there is more wrong with Nanny Bloomberg’s nudge than its restrictions on New Yorkers' freedom to hype up on two liters of Peach Snapple. The moral certitude that even the most progressive New Yorkers felt about Bloomberg’s limits on the size and location of “unhealthy drinks” was palpable in the days before the law was set to take effect. Find this and hundreds of other interesting books at the Reason Shop, powered by Amazon.

Liberal Fascism Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by conservative Jonah Goldberg on the origins and nature of fascist movements. Published in January 2008, it reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover non-fiction in its seventh week on the list.[1] Goldberg is a conservative syndicated columnist and the editor-at-large of National Review Online. Summary of contents[edit] In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".[2] Origin of title and cover[edit] Reception[edit] Positive reviews[edit] A review in the Claremont Review of Books said: Author David Pryce-Jones, a colleague of Goldberg's at National Review, wrote, Mr. Negative reviews[edit]

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Evil Spirit of 5 US Presidents - And Biggest Threat to World Peace by Anders 7 Feb 2010 from Euro-Med Website Summary There is a man who is more dangerous to mankind than any other living person today. For that purpose, he sees Eurasia as his grand chessboard, where the battle is to be won. He wants peace there, friendly arrangements, in particular with China, if possible, so that he can pursue the goal of his obsession, i.e. the purpose of the Trilateral Commission created by him and David Rockefeller: To create a world state by fusing a coming North American Union, at which he is working through the CSIS, the Union for the Mediterranean - and a Far East block which is now being created. His aim is a communist one world state where Russia, which he hates, is subdued by being split into 3 republics in a loose confederation - and if that is not possible - then ultimately even by WW III. In the Agenda 21 state people in the technetronic era will be totally controlled and via artificial intelligence (brain chipping) become post-human robots. Global Research

Distributive justice Often contrasted with just process, which is concerned with the administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and the social sciences. In social psychology, distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by (distributed across) group members.[1] For example, when workers of the same job are paid different salaries, group members may feel that distributive justice has not occurred. To determine whether distributive justice has taken place, individuals often turn to the distributive norms of their group.[1] A norm is the standard of behaviour that is required, desired, or designated as normal within a particular group.[2] If rewards and costs are allocated according to the designated distributive norms of the group, distributive justice has occurred.[3] Types of distributive norms[edit] Five types of distributive norm are defined by Forsyth:[1] Outcomes[edit]

The Racist Roots of Progressivism by Charles A. Burris by Charles A. Burris Previously by Charles A. Burris: War Crimes, the Holocaust, and Today’s National Security State You will never hear any of the inconvenient history related below by today's "progressives" or their mirror images, the neocons, who dominate the American elite political landscape, court intellectual academia, and the mainstream news media. Thomas C. Many of Leonard's explorations and insights are very compatible with the synthesis of analysis developed by economist/historian Murray N. "The Progressive Era and the Family": The Progressive Era was the incubation period of the welfare-warfare state – and of all the malevolence that follows. Until the 1890s, American history was essentially presented as the development of the Eastern seaboard states, seen as an extension overseas of English history or an episode in European overseas expansion. Senator Albert J. Mr. This was a crucial time in American intellectual history. Ideas truly have consequences. June 26, 2013 Charles A.

Who Rules America: Power Elite Analysis and American History by Charles A. Burris by Charles A. Burris Previously by Charles A. Burris: Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper Power Elite Analysis (also called Libertarian Class Analysis or Establishment Studies) is a theme I have repeatedly stressed at LRC to understand both present-day and past historical events. In July of 2010, Angelo Codevilla’s magnificent manifesto, "The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It" was published initially online in The American Spectator (and later in book form). When Codevilla’s article appeared I stated that it was the most important essay I had ever read. This class division of present-day America into two factions, Court and Country, has absolutely nothing to do with any Marxian view or analysis. These books demonstrate that the Founders’ world-view saw the crucial struggle of the Revolution as a battle of liberty versus power. This is the central theme this article will develop below. But it was the powerful lecture presentations by Walter E. 1. B. Charles A.

The Power Elite – Where there is the possibility of democracy, there is the inevitability of elite insecurity. All through its history, democracy has been under a sustained attack by elite interests, political, economic, and cultural. There is a simple reason for this: democracy – as in true democracy – places power with people. In such circumstances, the few who hold power become threatened. With technological changes in modern history, with literacy and education, mass communication, organization and activism, elites have had to react to the changing nature of society – locally and globally. From the late 19th century on, the “threats” to elite interests from the possibility of true democracy mobilized institutions, ideologies, and individuals in support of power. Yet for all the efforts, organization, indoctrination and reformation of power interests, the threat of democracy has remained a constant, seemingly embedded in the human consciousness, persistent and pervasive.

Oligarchs almost all the oligarchs, including Khodorkovsky, are Jewish [1] So what? That seems to be the usual response. Americans have grown acclimated to this kind of response. For the rest of you, living here on planet Earth, I suggest you compare and contrast what I present here and what you know of the Jewishness of the Bolshevik Revolution; the Jewishness of Hollywood; the Jewishness of the Clinton administration; the Jewishness of Neoconservatism; the Jewishness of Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, Boasian Anthropology, and Freudian Psychoanalysis; the claims of Tacitus; the claims of the early Christian church; the claims of Martin Luther; the claims of the Spanish Inquisition; the claims of the Third Reich. It all begins to paint a clearer and clearer picture, doesn't it? List of Billionaires Swells From 17 to 25 (See below for a bit about the "Magnificent Seven," the original Jewish oligarchs of Russia)