Is oligarchy inevitable?

[Mr. Piccolo]

I am often met with the argument that oligarchy is a natural feature of all large-scale human organizations. The German sociologist Robert Michels argued that due to the multiplication of tasks necessary to run a large organization effectively, a bureaucracy will inevitably arise and increase its power, centralizing decision-making in its own hands and reducing democratic accountability.

There have been critiques of the so-called Iron Law of Oligarchy, most notably Seymour Martin Lipset's book on the International Typographical Union, Union Democracy.

Lipset noted several factors that made the ITU less susceptible to the formation of an internal oligarchy. These included the existence of strong local unions that valued their autonomy, and the strength of factions within the union that prevented union leaders from giving themselves outsized salaries and powers. The existence of factions meant that there were always "out" groups ready to critique the "in" groups if they were perceived as corrupt or overly powerful.

I wanted to put this issue out there for comrades to discuss because I think this is an important issue for the Left.

[OzymandiasX]

This has occurred to me as well. It seems that the logic is fairly sound, and this pattern is observed throughout the biological world. And it is a simple intuitive understanding: if you take a group of people toss them into a cage to fight one another, at the end one will remain. Except unlike in a brawl, in business, finances can heal -- the human body can only to a certain degree.

The interesting paradox about human relations is that we enjoy community. Yet we are also placed in a situation where we are forced to compete against one another for even the most rudimentary needs and desires.

So the question should be what is the force that unites us? And what is it that divides us?

I'm confident that our desire for community is a vastly deeper and integral quality of our character than our geopolitical and economic habits.

My logic is that this desire for belonging and community is universally felt, even among the most viciously violent and competitive people. The exceptions being neurologically damaged or psychological troubled sociopaths. Competitive behavior on the other hand is very much learned. If it is perceived that competition will lead to happiness than children are vastly more disposed to that sort of behavior. But many people are not, even when it is determined to be advantageous.

Living within the framework of a global society that functions essentially to concentrate and redistribute power, it should come as no surprise that there is a trend of oligarchical formations. Civilization has made an art out of the process of organizing people into power distributing agents, whether as workers or soldiers. Power is the unifying force of the world.

But power is desirable when the opportunity is offered, as power is a means to alleviate work and provide happiness. So it should be accepted that as long the opportunity exists for corruption, then that corruption will take place and oligarchies (if not monopolies) will form. As the exploited we should take the imperative to work together to counter these forces. But it is difficult to have that foresight in an age when propaganda is resting within a hands reach and the governing myth is that we can all one day become oligarchs.

[Lev Ulyanov]

In primitive communist societies, the way this was prevented from happening was by giving the leader more responsibilities and more work than the rest, with no perks arising from leadership. Chris Harman discusses this in A People's History of the World. Perhaps the key lies in making it undesirable to lead?

Plato describes the ideal society as one where men fight to not be leaders, because they know that all are capable of leading, and that whoever leads will lead for the benefit of all, and thus do not want this responsibility for themselves.

[tuwix]

I wanted to put this issue out there for comrades to discuss because I think this is an important issue for the Left.

This is exactly why direct democracy is needed. All attempts to choose "wise" elite will result in creation of oligarchy. And regardless its name: vangaurd bolshevik party or her/his great highness...

[jullia]

By promote direct democracy we can avoid the creation of an oligarch class