The Iron Law of Oligarchies

[Joby]

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism) sociologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology) Robert Michels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Michels) in his 1911 book, Political Parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Parties_%28book%29). It states that all forms of organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization), regardless of how democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic) or autocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocratic) they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy). The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.


"Any large organization, Michels pointed out, is faced with problems of coordination that can be solved only by creating a bureaucracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy). A bureaucracy, by design, is hierarchically organized to achieve efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency) — many decisions have to be made daily that cannot efficiently be made by large numbers of people. The effective functioning of an organization therefore requires the concentration of much power in the hands of a few. Those few, in turn - the oligarchy - will then use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy#_note-leach)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy#_note-Elwell)
This process is further compounded as delegation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegation) is necessary in any large organization, as thousands - sometimes even hundreds of thousands - of members cannot make decisions using participatory democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy); this has been dictated by the lack of technological means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology) that would allow large number of people to meet and debate, and also the issues related to the crowd psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology) as Michels argued people feel the need to be led. The delegation however leads to specialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialization): the development of bases of knowledge, skills, and resources among a leadership, which further serves to alienate the leadership from the 'mass and rank' and entrenches the leadership in office.
Bureaucratization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy) and specialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialization) are the driving processes behind the Law. These create a specialized group of administrators in a hierarchical organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_organization). Which, in turn, leads to the rationalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28sociology%29) and routinization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routinization) of authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) and decision-making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making), a process first and perhaps best described by Max Weber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber), and to a lesser and more cynical extent, by the Peter Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle).
The organizational characteristics that promote oligarchy are reinforced by certain characteristics of both leaders and members of organizations. People achieve leadership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership) positions precisely because they have unusual political skill; they are adept at getting their way and persuading others of the correctness of their views (see charismatic authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority)). Once they hold high office, their power and prestige is further increased. Leaders have access to, and control over, information and facilities that are not available to the rank-and-file. They control the information that flows down the channels of communication. Leaders are also strongly motivated to persuade the organization of the rightness of their views, and they use all of their skills, power and authority to do so.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy#_note-Elwell)
By design of the organization, rank and file are less informed than their "superiors." Finally, from birth, people are taught to obey those in positions of authority. Therefore the rank and file tend to look to leaders for policy directives and are generally prepared to allow leaders to exercise their judgment on most matters.
Leaders also have control over very powerful negative and positive sanctions to promote the behavior that they desire. They have the power to grant or deny raises, assign workloads, fire, demote and — that most gratifying of all sanctions — the power to promote. Most important, they tend to promote junior officials who share their opinions, with the result that the oligarchy becomes self-perpetuating. Therefore the very nature of large-scale organization makes oligarchy within these organizations inevitable. Bureaucracy, by design, promotes the centralization of power in the hands of those at the top of the organization.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy#_note-Elwell)"

The jist of it is that the masses do not want to lead. They want to be led.

If one is to accept the materialist-based view of history, as many here do, then every revolution in the history of the world has become people were dissatisfied with the leadership's management.

It is because of this that the groups normally calling for Revolution naturally hope for occurrences which they can blame on the ruling classes. They love it; Socialists loved how disgusted they were following Katrina. It's not about how well the masses are managed; It's about how satisfied they are.

The number of socialists showing sympathy for those who simply bought off more house than they could chew is another example of this form of realpolitik.

Every revolution has accomplished the same thing: Replacing the former system of rulers with another set.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This whole idea of revolutions being followed by the slime of bueracracy is not a new one, to be certain. And, to a great extent, it is vindicated by history.

Is your point simply that humans will continue to rebel and continue to fuck it all up into perpetuity?

[flpwch]

This whole idea of revolutions being followed by the slime of beuracracy is not a new one, to be certain. And, to a great extent, it is vindicated by history.

Is your point simply that humans will continue to rebel and continue to fuck it all up into perpetuity?
This seems like an apt description of human history since the dawn of civilization. And, it seems it will be like this for most of the predictable future, bar some huge disaster or other event that changes the course. Some people just have the tendency, whether it be from upbringing or some birth trait (I've got no idea on why they do, but I know just as much that they do nonetheless), to lead. They will gain their economic power, grab political power, and make the oligarchical society so described, until the lower classes revolt and start the cycle over.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This seems like an apt description of human history since the dawn of civilization. And, it seems it will be like this for most of the predictable future, bar some huge disaster or other event that changes the course. Some people just have the tendency, whether it be from upbringing or some birth trait (I've got no idea on why they do, but I know just as much that they do nonetheless), to lead. They will gain their economic power, grab political power, and make the oligarchical society so described, until the lower classes revolt and start the cycle over.

That's all well and good, but I don't think we should just slide into apathy. In other words, when we see a situation that is obviously oppressive and unjust, we shouldn't throw our hands in the air and say, "What does it matter if we resist? We're gonna be fucked anyway!" When something is perceived to be wrong with society and/or government, you attempt to fix it.

Plus, the revolutions that have "failed" (as in, brought about new oppression to replace the old) were about wielding power that used to be in the hands of an overthrown government to "benefit" the people; they never considered that the power structures THEMSELVES might be the problem, and attempt to decentralize power. But that's just me as an anarchist talking, I guess.

[flpwch]

That's all well and good, but I don't think we should just slide into apathy. In other words, when we see a situation that is obviously oppressive and unjust, we shouldn't throw our hands in the air and say, "What does it matter if we resist? We're gonna be fucked anyway!" When something is perceived to be wrong with society and/or government, you attempt to fix it.

Plus, the revolutions that have "failed" (as in, brought about new oppression to replace the old) were about wielding power that used to be in the hands of an overthrown government to "benefit" the people; they never considered that the power structures THEMSELVES might be the problem, and attempt to decentralize power. But that's just me as an anarchist talking, I guess.

The fundamental problem is that the "leaders" in this case would recreate the government in a way that would benefit them, sort of like how civilization started from being nomadic. Decentralization of power would work for a time.

Lets say that Country A decides that their government is oppressive and they overthrow it in an effective attempt for anarchy. So, there is no government. For the sake of the example, lets say that no reactionary forces from neighboring countries intervene. People in Country A will be good for a while, until those natural leaders emerge for whatever reason it is that they emerge.

Now, these leaders will probably start small, with their village, controlling the town, things like that. Once they dominate their town, they will branch out in search of more power. Capitalist theory comes into play here, and monopolies will eventually come of out this. At some point later, probably quite a lot later, the country will be dominated by the powerful wealthy, an oligarchy. Citizens in Country A will once again feel oppressed, and overthrow the government again.

The only way to suppress the leaders is to have a government to do so. A parent won't kill their child because they endanger the state (or lack thereof as the case may be here), so the natural leader-child is free to develop. The fundamental problem here is that people aren't exactly the same. If one person happens to lead better and the other follows, the better leader will lead and the better follower will follow.

[Bright Banana Beard]

The fundamental problem is that the "leaders" in this case would recreate the government in a way that would benefit them, sort of like how civilization started from being nomadic. Decentralization of power would work for a time.

Lets say that Country A decides that their government is oppressive and they overthrow it in an effective attempt for anarchy. So, there is no government. For the sake of the example, lets say that no reactionary forces from neighboring countries intervene. People in Country A will be good for a while, until those natural leaders emerge for whatever reason it is that they emerge.

Now, these leaders will probably start small, with their village, controlling the town, things like that. Once they dominate their town, they will branch out in search of more power. Capitalist theory comes into play here, and monopolies will eventually come of out this. At some point later, probably quite a lot later, the country will be dominated by the powerful wealthy, an oligarchy. Citizens in Country A will once again feel oppressed, and overthrow the government again.

The only way to suppress the leaders is to have a government to do so. A parent won't kill their child because they endanger the state (or lack thereof as the case may be here), so the natural leader-child is free to develop. The fundamental problem here is that people aren't exactly the same. If one person happens to lead better and the other follows, the better leader will lead and the better follower will follow.

Right, we have a cycle of humankind history. :lol: WE DON'T. It is the keeping going of advancement on technology and there will be education that is totally free and unrestrictive that people will know leader is and always be oppressive to them regardless how nice the leader is.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The fundamental problem is that the "leaders" in this case would recreate the government in a way that would benefit them, sort of like how civilization started from being nomadic. Decentralization of power would work for a time.

Lets say that Country A decides that their government is oppressive and they overthrow it in an effective attempt for anarchy. So, there is no government. For the sake of the example, lets say that no reactionary forces from neighboring countries intervene. People in Country A will be good for a while, until those natural leaders emerge for whatever reason it is that they emerge.

Now, these leaders will probably start small, with their village, controlling the town, things like that. Once they dominate their town, they will branch out in search of more power. Capitalist theory comes into play here, and monopolies will eventually come of out this. At some point later, probably quite a lot later, the country will be dominated by the powerful wealthy, an oligarchy. Citizens in Country A will once again feel oppressed, and overthrow the government again.

The only way to suppress the leaders is to have a government to do so. A parent won't kill their child because they endanger the state (or lack thereof as the case may be here), so the natural leader-child is free to develop. The fundamental problem here is that people aren't exactly the same. If one person happens to lead better and the other follows, the better leader will lead and the better follower will follow.

I don't think that anarchism will work if it is isolated in one country. I also think that it will come about as a simple factor of the fact that humans will see the concept of being led by a "benevolent master" as a no longer appealing one.

In other words, there just isn't going to be a massive revolution one day, and then everyone will leave happily ever after in anarchy.

[pusher robot]

It is the keeping going of advancement on technology and there will be education that is totally free and unrestrictive that people will know leader is and always be oppressive to them regardless how nice the leader is.Well that begs the question of what oppression is, does it not? You must accept the fact that most people, being naturally lazy, don't have any strong desire to assume the burden of leadership, and, frankly, are willing to tolerate a certain amount of oppression for the benefit of not having to assume responsibility. What's to guarantee that, having destroyed all leaders and institutions of authority, the people don't find themselves burdened with the weight of not only running society, but running it as a democratic compromise with every other member of society, all asking themselves: "why, oh why, didn't I take the blue pill?"

[Joby]

Is your point simply that humans will continue to rebel and continue to fuck it all up into perpetuity?

No, but that people are sheep. Always have been, always will be.

Most don't want to go fight off the wolves. Whether that be fughting an enemy, baking their bread, or planning for a Class 5 hurricane off the coast. They want the shepherd (ie the ruling classes) to take care of it all for them. *edit: The difference between Capitalism and Communism, as we've seen it, is that Capitalism allows anybody to provide a good or service for any group wishing it, while in Communism the burden rests solely with the State.

So any revolution, in this sense, will never emancipate mankind because they do not wish to be freed. And every revolutionary should, essentially, drop the BS surrounding that fact.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well that begs the question of what oppression is, does it not? You must accept the fact that most people, being naturally lazy, don't have any strong desire to assume the burden of leadership, and, frankly, are willing to tolerate a certain amount of oppression for the benefit of not having to assume responsibility. What's to guarantee that, having destroyed all leaders and institutions of authority, the people don't find themselves burdened with the weight of not only running society, but running it as a democratic compromise with every other member of society, all asking themselves: "why, oh why, didn't I take the blue pill?"

Are humans naturally lazy? Is it part of our very nature to be lazy?

This is an interesting question; Bastiat addressed it in The Law, which is actually the first piece of political/ideological literature that I'd had read, at the time. Essentially, his point was that the most base of human instincts is avoidance of pain, and, since labor is pain, in a sense, humans are going to do whatever it takes to avoid it. I found it to be a very compelling argument, at the time. But, ultimately, I mostly reject arguments against anarchism that revolve around some sort of "human nature". There are legitimate critiques of the philosophy in general, but I don't think that "human nature" is one of them.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about the "deproletarization" of society with the advent of new technology? Don't you feel that this will put less and less responsibility on the individual to help run society?

(I guess I'm talking about technocracy, now....)

[Os Cangaceiros]

No, but that people are sheep. Always have been, always will be.


But people aren't sheep; if they were, there would be no reason to discuss this thread, as revolutions, rebellions, and uprisings would never exist in the first place.

[flpwch]

I don't think that anarchism will work if it is isolated in one country. I also think that it will come about as a simple factor of the fact that humans will see the concept of being led by a "benevolent master" as a no longer appealing one.

In other words, there just isn't going to be a massive revolution one day, and then everyone will leave happily ever after in anarchy.
Do tell, what will happen, then?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Do tell, what will happen, then?

There is many theories, but we cannot know what will happen, but what is important is that it is the masses that can only possible do this, not the party or vanguard . Education is our best weapon and we are mending ourselve after criticism of many opponent to alternative society. Only time will tell.

[Joby]

But people aren't sheep; if they were, there would be no reason to discuss this thread, as revolutions, rebellions, and uprisings would never exist in the first place.

If people weren't sheep, they would overthrow the system they live in based on the injustices leveled by it.

Instead, a group of the politically active plot for that moment when the existing system fails them, causing them to rise up.

Which is why Lenin must have been elated when he heard of the thousands dead at Tannenberg, or the starvation the war was causing. "Revolutionary Defeatism" is, I believe, the euphism commonly used.

[Joby]

There is many theories, but we cannot know what will happen, but what is important is that it is the masses that can only possible do this, not the party or vanguard . Education is our best weapon and we are mending ourselve after criticism of many opponent to alternative society. Only time will tell.

What we're saying is that your barking up a dead tree.

The masses will never be for a system which puts full responsibility on themselves, and such a system would never last anyway. The masses generally gravitate towards powerul figures or institutions; Those standing above the crowd.

For example, why would an engineer/teacher couple with children, a cat, and a dog want to worry about overseeing every aspect of society?

Or better yet, have you ever met someone who looked forward to Jury duty? Or community service?

[Marsella]

If people weren't sheep, they would overthrow the system they live in based on the injustices leveled by it.

Instead, a group of the politically active plot for that moment when the existing system fails them, causing them to rise up.

Which is why Lenin must have been elated when he heard of the thousands dead at Tannenberg, or the starvation the war was causing. "Revolutionary Defeatism" is, I believe, the euphism commonly used.

No, Lenin rightly attacked revolutionary defeatism, arguing for an immediate end to the war. He certainly did not want the war to continue so that despair would inspire a revolt, like some of the other 'leftists' of his day.

People are not naturally 'sheep.' But the way capitalism works is to encourage that sort of behaviour.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well that begs the question of what oppression is, does it not? You must accept the fact that most people, being naturally lazy, don't have any strong desire to assume the burden of leadership, and, frankly, are willing to tolerate a certain amount of oppression for the benefit of not having to assume responsibility. What's to guarantee that, having destroyed all leaders and institutions of authority, the people don't find themselves burdened with the weight of not only running society, but running it as a democratic compromise with every other member of society, all asking themselves: "why, oh why, didn't I take the blue pill?"

Fortunately, your theoretics count on humans being so lazy that they would accept oppression regardless of the material conditions. Certainly politicians and voters alike could forsake their democratic rights at this very moment just to have a highly organized state structure make the decisions for them, but they don't. If economic and direct democracy are perceived as being superior to contemporary conditions, as we believe they will be, the question of the rabbit hole doesn't even come up. How many contemporary individuals would return to feudalism at this very moment? Certainly if at any point in the future an international pandemic occurs like, say (for the sake of my amusement) a zombie virus, conditions could worsen to the point that strong kings who trace their heritage back to now-dead monarchs rise up. The Roman Republic didn't gave way into an empire because people were simply lazy; economic and social problems led the way. This falls in line with Marxist theory.

I count this as a second lost theory with "iron laws" attached to it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What we're saying is that your barking up a dead tree.

The masses will never be for a system which puts full responsibility on themselves, and such a system would never last anyway. The masses generally gravitate towards powerul figures or institutions; Those standing above the crowd.

For example, why would an engineer/teacher couple with children, a cat, and a dog want to worry about overseeing every aspect of society?

Or better yet, have you ever met someone who looked forward to Jury duty? Or community service?

As a rule of thumb "the masses" abstain from most decision-making processes that don't pertain to them. Not every problem that arises from dirt could, should, or would be put up to my consideration - unless, of course, we develop some high-level virtual reality systems where you can literally become the god of whatever sick (or benign) universe you want. If the local ice cream shop is wanting to look into redesigning their logo, I probably won't even know about it until the new logo is in place.

Participatory democracy is a wonderful concept. If you care, you vote. Things get done, and people's voices are still represented fairly.

[pusher robot]

[quote]Fortunately, your theoretics count on humans being so lazy that they would accept oppression regardless of the material conditions.I made no such claim. My claim was that many people are willing to trade "some" oppression out of laziness, for the benefit of reduced responsibility. Material conditions are a red herring; obviously they would also affect tolerance for oppression one way or the other.

Certainly politicians and voters alike could forsake their democratic rights at this very moment just to have a highly organized state structure make the decisions for them, but they don't.Don't they? The ever-expanding scale and scope of government gives the opposite impression. The explosion of undemocratic regulatory agencies and the relative lack of outcry gives the opposite impression as well.

The masses generally gravitate towards powerul figures or institutions; Those standing above the crowd.The problem is simply that "do it yourself" makes for far worse rhetoric than "can't someone else do it?"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Trashofthetitanstruck.png

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Don't they? The ever-expanding scale and scope of government gives the opposite impression. The explosion of undemocratic regulatory agencies and the relative lack of outcry gives the opposite impression as well.I was referencing immediate change rather than gradual inclination towards authoritarianism. If anything the scope of government increasing lends support behind my claim. The average American no longer has long-term financial security. Wages are actually decreasing. And I don't think I need to discuss how foreign policy has scared the bejesus out of some people.

We are also far from being the welfare state that existed in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and early 70s. American politics is very funny; Democrats historically attract peace activists while being the originators of most wars, whereas Republicans attract fiscal conservatives when Democratic presidents have done a better job at balancing budgets.


My claim was that many people are willing to trade "some" oppression out of laziness, for the benefit of reduced responsibility. Material conditions are a red herring; obviously they would also affect tolerance for oppression one way or the other.Participatory democracy solves this problem. If you don't care, then don't participate.

[Joby]

As a rule of thumb "the masses" abstain from most decision-making processes that don't pertain to them. Not every problem that arises from dirt could, should, or would be put up to my consideration - unless, of course, we develop some high-level virtual reality systems where you can literally become the god of whatever sick (or benign) universe you want. If the local ice cream shop is wanting to look into redesigning their logo, I probably won't even know about it until the new logo is in place.

Participatory democracy is a wonderful concept. If you care, you vote. Things get done, and people's voices are still represented fairly.

That was directed more at the Anarchists.

And we have participatory democracy today. Obvioulsy, an elite has taken over and is running evrything. And judging by the numbers, most support this.
But not me; I voted Obama! :D

Seriously though, if you want more bang-for-your-vote, I'd reccomend anti-federalist, libertarian thinking. More power for the states, etc. But this, of course, is in conflict with most centralizing-type lefties, no?