The Iron Law of Oligarchy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2023
- Patreon: www.patreon.com/untimelyreflections
Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/0s9Q...
“He who says organization says oligarchy." With these words, Robert Michels advances his sociological theory of what is called the iron law of oligarchy. Whenever human beings arrange themselves into a social group, the structural realities of organizing human beings for coordinated action result in minority rule. Far from asserting this as a reality that we have overcome with democracy, this pattern obtains just as strongly in democratic structures of power as in others. Robert Michels lived from 1876 to 1936, wrote several books, and taught sociology and economics at university - including at Basel, where Nietzsche also taught. Michels' arguments are particularly compelling because he began his political career as a socialist and worked within the socialist parties in Germany to advocate for economic reform. However, he soon began to perceive that the structure of the party itself had created another oligarchy within it, and that the leaders of the party seemed to naturally drift from the interests and perspectives of the workers at large. While we might expect such dynamics within monarchist or conservative parties, it was the revelation of this tendency within the leftist parties that disturbed Michels and compelled him to change his approach to politics. If even the avowedly socialistic and revolutionary political parties were destined to become oligarchic in their structure, then this surely points to something inherent to the human social structure that inevitably produces oligarchic rule. Today we're diving into his work, Political Parties, and exploring whether there is good evidence for the iron law of oligarchy.
#nietzsche #philosophy #philosophypodcast #politicalphilosophy #politics #oligarchy #socialism #politicaltheory
Thoughts/notes as I listen (which is a great way to remember the main ideas after going through such a dense podcast):
- The tendency toward oligarchy arises from the need for groups to organize as much information with as little effort as possible, because diligently going through every person's resume means nothing would ever get done
- The idea that a difference in quantity of masses leads to a qualitative change in the relationship is really astute, I studied this in political theory as "tipping points" and it has applications in epidemiology, criminology, basically any study of large groups, we definitely saw this with viral vectors and covid, there's also findings of it in policing and crime showing that after a certain threshold street crime diminishes and then there are huge diminishing returns of adding more police to reduce crime further
- It feels like the urge toward nepotism is stronger than meritocracy in both capitalist and socialist states, the decision makers take the path of least resistance and take someone from their exclusive club or yes-men rather than than people with the most specialized knowledge
- Labour aristocracy is absolutely real, however given the relative lack of union membership and power since the 1980s, I don't think union leadership today in the US/UK/Canada feel much affinity to political or business leaders who have so much more power in society than they do, their means of survival are very much still tied to the success of the working class and not the bourgeoisie or a government bureaucracy
- it seems the disdain of experts today is largely due to the huge gap in education and material welfare of general labourers vs specialized professionals; as you said, experts emancipate themselves from the common people, and the common people resent this and form their own in-groups with their own forms of knowledge, and that's how you get anti-science, anti-vax grifts, etc. to appease the psychological need of non-experts to feel like they know what's going on even though they've been left out by the people who are supposed to represent them
was never very interested in politics when I was younger, as I've gotten older, I have become more interested in it to the point that now, listening to your lectures on fascism, war, socialism, capitalism, platos republic etc very interesting!
Michael Millerman is interesting on Plato, he's a follower of Leo Strauss.
Been going through your entire archive, really appreciate your insights. Just finished the Schopenhauer double episode and wasn’t left in a pit of malaise so kudos for that!
Great series of lectures overall though thanks for your work.
I'm definitely a Nietzsche afficionado but overall I can better digest and assimilate Schopenhauer. But I always prefer Nietzsche because of his edge
Another insanely insightful, deep, well researched and presented treatise on an important thinker and how Nietzsche’s work influenced him.
Well done Keegan
00:00 📚 Robert Michels introduced the concept of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy," which suggests that organized human groups tend to be ruled by a minority, even in democratic systems.
01:23 📖 Michels wrote extensively on political parties and argued that they inevitably become oligarchic in structure, with a small group of individuals making decisions, regardless of their original democratic intentions.
03:43 🔄 Michels' theory does not negate the possibility of democracy or egalitarianism but emphasizes the persistent tendency of social structures to gravitate towards oligarchy due to the nature of human organization.
05:48 🇩🇪 Robert Michels, born in Germany in 1876, criticized his own socialist party for becoming less revolutionary and more oligarchic as they pursued political power.
08:33 🌍 Michels' ideas challenged political idealism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, suggesting that the inherent tendency toward oligarchy is a central challenge to various political ideologies.
11:55 🤝 Some Marxist responses in the 1920s and 30s addressed Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy by suggesting that communism could overcome the oligarchic tendencies through the education and empowerment of the masses.
15:39 🔊 Michels argued against the technical feasibility of direct government by the masses, pointing out challenges related to communication, education, and decision-making.
19:25 📣 Michels contended that even in direct democracy, leaders or interpreters would naturally emerge due to people's reliance on others for understanding complex issues, leading to a form of indirect governance.
21:30 🗳 Democratic decision-making faces challenges with scale, as large crowds have different characteristics from small groups.
21:58 🏛 Direct democratic participation becomes functional when selective and exclusive, especially in matters like criminal justice and jury selection.
23:35 🤝 Delegation of decision-making is necessary in democratic systems, as not everyone can be informed and involved in every matter.
27:03 💼 Specialization is needed in decision-making due to the impossibility of everyone being an expert on everything all the time.
36:48 🧑🤝🧑 Organizational growth leads to the concentration of power in the hands of leaders, creating a divide between the leaders and the masses.
42:02 🔄 Democratic expansion to the populace coexists with a backwash of oligarchic tendencies within political parties, leading to a decline in true democracy.
43:51 🌟 Factors determining leadership aptitude in a party include oratorical skill, conviction, compassion, and celebrity, with celebrity often outweighing others.
45:27 🏛 Party leaders tend to be more permanent fixtures than the base members due to factors like age and engagement.
47:34 🗳 Democratic oversight over leadership often fails due to the non-interest of the masses in imposing limitations.
49:01 🔄 Imposing strict term limits on leadership is limited in its application and not always advisable due to the need for stable administration.
54:32 💼 Democracy tends to foster conservatism among the masses, and gradual changes are preferred over radical shifts.
58:00 💰 Paying party employees creates loyalty but also centralizes power, creating a dependency similar to the aristocratic systems.
01:04:38 ⛪ The increase in a party's financial strength can lead to dictatorial tendencies within the party bureaucracy, similar to the historical experience of Christianity's hierarchy.
01:05:20 🏛 The video discusses how organizational structures, including political parties, can become corrupted over time due to the pursuit of power, similar to how the church became corrupted.
01:06:41 📰 Party leadership can tighten its grip on power by controlling the press, information distribution, funding for elections, and the structure of party politics, often leading to leaders driven by personal gain rather than idealism.
01:09:14 🔄 Oligarchies in modern popular parties face threats from both charismatic leaders and the masses, causing them to resist obeying the will of the people and leading to a lack of trust within the party.
01:13:48 🔀 Aspiring elites who gain popular support pose a significant threat to the existing oligarchy, but they are often absorbed into the party's power structure, maintaining the status quo.
01:16:20 🌟 Even reformers and revolutionaries can become part of the existing power structure over time, aligning their interests with the oligarchy, which stifles meaningful change.
01:17:44 🗳 The democratic faith that leaders will do the right thing upon taking office is often misplaced, as leaders' interests diverge from those of the masses, leading to disillusionment.
01:24:05 🔄 Political struggles are more about competition between different oligarchies than genuine revolutionary battles, and the principle of minoritarian rule remains dominant.
01:25:26 💎 The pursuit of democracy is likened to a fable about searching for buried treasure, suggesting that even if true democracy is elusive, the continuous search can lead to positive outcomes and improvements in society.
01:26:26 🗳 Nichols views true democracy as impossible due to sociological realities, but he sounds less cynical than idealistic socialists in understanding the conservative and hierarchical tendencies in human social life.
01:27:20 🌟 The labor movement might give rise to "free spirits" who question the basis of authority and seek to revise it, potentially leading to positive intellectual developments.
01:28:27 🔒 Nichols concludes that organization always tends toward oligarchy, making the struggle against centralized power appear cyclical, with democracies gradually adopting aristocratic traits.
01:29:51 ♻ The cyclic pattern of democratic transformation, fusion with old dominant classes, and renewal of attacks on traitors characterizes the enduring spectacle of history's democratic currents according to Nichols.
I believe the athenians came the closest to developing an anti-oligarchic structure. It sounds absurd but when you take into account the iron law of oligarchy, randomizing political/judicial office through sortition and very short terms, combined with some popular oversight, seems to be relatively efficient. Granted Athens suffered the tyranny of the 30, but that was imposed by the victors of the peoloponnesian war, and eventually it was overthrown. Almost no other system, I would argue, has been so oligarchy proof.
that would be so radical today, awesome.
I'm relatively new to this channel and I'm very honestly glad I found it. Your videos have been of great help in consolidating my articulation of Nietzsche's body of work, often providing música and flair to the somewhat hard task of rewriting my notes in English, as it is not my mother tongue.
New thoughts and ideas have sprung from me just listening to you, and they're now blossoming to full expression. I hope you don't mind me "stealing" a few of your remarks verbatim for personal use and development of my own :)
Keep up the good work, my brother.
( I also use your videos to fall asleep as they are very relaxing.)
Came here after the Parenti lecture on Caesar. I haven't studied Nietzche much but the ideas on your podcast are so broad I feel there are takeaways for everyone. Keep up the great work!
Fascinating. I knew neither Turchin nor Michaels. I suppose you're aware of the work of Vico and Spengler? Both had a cyclical philosophy of history, much like Ibn Khaldun's. Spengler is particularly pertinent, I think, because Nietzsche was a direct and acknowledged influence. And while he clearly got some of the details wrong, particularly when he examined non-European civilisations, his thesis is basically sound, in my view. And I imagine Nietzsche would have approved.
Great book: Political Parties : A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy
Well U have a good voice in every way and easy to listen to ...which says a lot!
Excellent video
Great video. Everyone needs to give this a listen
in short ...
Human Leadership will always become a Collation of the Weak , using / misusing the Kind of Power they imagen that a Strong Leader would use ...
Then that begs the question: Who gets to obey, and who gets to command?
@@AGamer1177 I think that’s the question that all politics seeks to answer. As a socialist, I’d say the common man should be dictator of his own destiny. Much of what michels says, though, seems to match up precisely with previous socialist projects :(
@@Smerpyderp So are you the Social Democrat, or the Marxist-Leninist?
@@AGamer1177 Neither. More of a Syndicalist, though I think Marx has some useful analyses.
@@Smerpyderp that is not and was NEVER the Question of Politics ... the People IN Politics will never see themselves as the once that have to take Orders , that is for other People to do .
Magnificent as usual!
Democracy only works well in smaller groups (with common and similar interests.) True. The Amish are one of the few groups who have accomplished this on their own terms. The Amish do not determine the democracy of the country beyond their acreage. Now let us imagine that many groups with similar interest also start forming their own “private economic spheres.” We have seen this with Italian mafias (who actually controlled official government of the state to a great measure not to mention labor unions!). We have a much more life affirming example with the Mondrsgon cooperative of Basque. Let us imagine a scenario where independent worker cooperatives (ideally selling holistic healthy products) spread across the world . They align in their shared values of sustainability and egalitarian (profit sharing). They also value the arts, humanities, philosophy, and artisanal crafts and all engage in this educational model. Now they form under a franchise network (while each retaining autonomy . As a franchise they now are solving many social ills by their very day to day “empowerment.” So much of what the official national government focuses on solving is already prevented by the franchise . Few young people enlist in military as the cooperative opportunity is much more appealing . Here democracy is a byproduct of intelligent living . It is a mistake to start with lofty ideas and expect humble outcomes. We then start with humble actions and no longer need such lofty ideals.
The question isn't that there will be hierarchical systems, but whether those hierarchical systems can evolve to effectively change with new conditions or do they ossify and become stuck in their own bubbles. Time always moves forward and this is always lost on those stuck in the "good old days".
In Switzerland direct democracy has been quite effective for a long time. Of course political parties and other influential entities like trade unions and powerful economical groups have a huge influence on the voters decisions because they put a lot of money into political propaganda. Yet the citizen is able to make up his own mind freely.
That's refreshing to hear. I think it speaks highly of the education of the citizenry. Unfortunately, in America it seems like we teach ignorance, regardless of what political party is in power.
Can't have an engaged citizenry that feels the responsibility to stay informed without good education.
Also, we are constantly drowned with pointless entertainment (and drugs) so most don't want to take responsibility.
Until one side votes out the democracy part
After all that brainwashing???
Chestnut: every system gets gamed. Big system, big game. Small system, small game.
a) oratorical skill
b) force of will/conviction (think Thatcher, Reagan and Malcolm X)
c) goodness & disinteredness (Christ like) - compassion detached from personal gain
d) celebrity/notoriety
It's funny. I was thinking of this the other day, and was also thinking perhaps a dictator strong man van be put in to balance the oligarchy, if he is made to oppose them and cor them not to seek too much.
I was also wondering if a dictator or monarch can be used as a guarantor for a constitution, having their life be connected to it being upheld
A government can lose power to:
1. New leaders rising in ranks
2. Revolt from frustrated masses
3. Invasion from foreign powers
American power:
1. Elect new leaders
2. Mass protest and shift in values
3. Wars vs foreign nations
Trying to build something will not always turn out perfectly because it will run into new challenges.
I wonder how new technologies and especially Ai will affect all of this.
You cant have a bureaucratic elite if AI does most of the work.
Robotics is not quite there yet, but automatization will remove the need for the working class.
And this is not directly related to this video but I wonder what would Nietzsche thinks about genetic engineering, it has the potential to make most people strong healthy, and beautiful and in doing so reduce the number of what Nietzsche would call despisers of the body.
"You can't have a bureaucratic elite if AU dies most of the work. " why not? Look what Done did with slave labor leaving 96% of Roman citizens in poverty. This is the exact same as what could happen with AI, just 96% will be left in a short of intellectual &/or "spiritual" poverty, with most people being fed & sheltered, unemployed & left to game, have sex, & eat. Essential a blend of Plato's bronze class with Rome's Republic.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Heyo!
We indeed have a kleptocratic oligarchy in the west that dominates the rest of the world. Majority rule or minority rule is always tyrannical because it uses coercion. Not choice.
As C.S. Lewis said, Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
We need tension between Ideas to create better ideas
A separation of church and state was a welcome step forward; since money has replaced all vestiges of church and its associated powers, it should be an easy move to separate COMMERCE from state.
Bureaucracy or oligarchy?
your original pronounciation of michel is correct . 1:50 this is the german way to pronounce his name lol.
Well he is German.
gREAT content. make moar pls.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy Rules with Controlled Opposition and Useful Idiot's on all side's and all levels. Audi Vide Tace.
" old man " in his fifties 😅
The people do know whether they are happy or their life is unbearable, in which case they can recognize the patterns of getting screwed over.
Yep, in short, how evil rules this world.
This misunderstands the meaning of democracy.
This is great. I also highly advise looking into Dunbar's Number en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number as when humans group beyond this, it goes from face-to-face accountability and egalitarianism to beauracracy it seems. Building civilization is inherently authoritarian and there is no way around that. Lots of people think civilization is great and all that and that's fine, but its best to skip the surface level arguments and look at the fundamentals, which are its costs. One cost is the mass of people will always be relegated to menial work to maintain this juggernaut because civilization is fundamentally an unsustainable draw-down of energy in general (Negative EROI - energy return on energy invested), hence the ongoing mass extinction event as humans burn down all the ecologies to run and maintain it. I highly recommend giving this a read too - Lewis Mumford's Democratic and Authoritarian technics www.mom.arq.ufmg.br/mom/02_babel/textos/mumford_authoritarian.pdf as technology has inherent values and structures built into.
Another factor is a really deep and insightful work called Denial of Death en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death How most if not all symbolic human cultures are basically an elaborate symbolic coping mechanism for fear of our mortality. Sheldon Solomon pretty much proved a lot of our anti social behavior and aggression towards others is unconscious fear of death with his research, and the conclusions one can draw from that is pretty horrifying. ruclips.net/video/wuJhD5TkX-0/видео.html
Ultimately though it's worth trying to struggle for more agency against oligarchy just like its worth trying to make something amazing out of our lives. Ripeness is all!