While it’s true that an oligarchical government can emerge in certain circumstances …
It tends to emerge in most circumstances, and avoiding it requires constant and vigorous opposition from the state and the public.
The presence of an oligarchy is often more a reflection of the effectiveness of a country’s political and regulatory institutions than a direct result of capitalism itself.
However, it would be extremely naive to think that economic power does not bring with it a significant amount of political and regulatory power, not to mention cultural power (e.g. through ownership of the media) and the support of the local religions.
I would suggest the framing that avoiding the worst expressions of oligarchy requires vigorous opposition from the public, including through an organized public leveraging state power toward its own favor and against the oligarchs.
Well, ultimately the state is the structure of greatest power, and power functions above all else to reproduce itself despite whatever harm it may inflict on the disempowered. Therefore, the power of the state, and the remainder of society, who are disempowered by the state, have mutually antagonistic interests.
The powerful outside the state, by their power, have more power over the state, and therefore the state is never neutral, but rather an organ of empowerment for the powerful.
Ultimately oligarchy produces the state and the state produces oligarchy. They are one in the same, as a class, the oligarchs, the rulership, the owners, the corporations, the shareholders, the landlords, the politicians, the bosses, the fat cats, the bourgeoisie, are all the same as a class.
The base of the population may seek to utilize the state toward its own interests, but can never benefit from the occurrence of the state, only struggle against it.
The disempowered as class may only gain power by abolishing power.
Instead of seeking to eliminate the super-rich, which would involve extreme measures and likely lead to societal instability, most societies focus on implementing measures to ensure that wealth and power are not concentrated to the detriment of the broader population. This typically involves implementing policies and regulations that promote economic fairness, reduce income and wealth inequality, and prevent the undue influence of the super-rich in politics and governance.
Efforts to address income and wealth inequality often include measures such as progressive taxation, social safety nets, education and workforce development programs, and policies that promote fair competition and economic opportunity for all. The aim is to strike a balance where individuals can accumulate wealth through entrepreneurship and hard work but within a framework that prevents extreme disparities and ensures that the benefits of economic growth are broadly shared.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms. Instead, societies strive to create a fair and just system that allows for wealth creation while preventing abuses of power and wealth concentration.
A handful of individuals owning the entire world is against democracy and is creating instability. They write the policies they prefer, and ignore the rest.
You seem to regard the state as some kind of transcendental or otherworldly power, above and beyond the control over the material basis of society wielded through the construct of private property.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms.
What type of elimination are we talking about here? Jail? Exile? Execution? Or just having their excess wealth taken away, so they are no longer super-rich?
Being extremely wealthy is, by itself, not a crime. But it would not be unreasonable to tax all income (or even wealth) above a large threshold at 50%, or even 90%. This would ‘eliminate’ the super-rich while not physically harming or punishing them.
It tends to emerge in most circumstances, and avoiding it requires constant and vigorous opposition from the state and the public.
However, it would be extremely naive to think that economic power does not bring with it a significant amount of political and regulatory power, not to mention cultural power (e.g. through ownership of the media) and the support of the local religions.
I would suggest the framing that avoiding the worst expressions of oligarchy requires vigorous opposition from the public, including through an organized public leveraging state power toward its own favor and against the oligarchs.
Agreed. The state can be a force for good or for harm. In the worst cases, the state can even act as an arm of those in power.
Well, ultimately the state is the structure of greatest power, and power functions above all else to reproduce itself despite whatever harm it may inflict on the disempowered. Therefore, the power of the state, and the remainder of society, who are disempowered by the state, have mutually antagonistic interests.
The powerful outside the state, by their power, have more power over the state, and therefore the state is never neutral, but rather an organ of empowerment for the powerful.
Ultimately oligarchy produces the state and the state produces oligarchy. They are one in the same, as a class, the oligarchs, the rulership, the owners, the corporations, the shareholders, the landlords, the politicians, the bosses, the fat cats, the bourgeoisie, are all the same as a class.
The base of the population may seek to utilize the state toward its own interests, but can never benefit from the occurrence of the state, only struggle against it.
The disempowered as class may only gain power by abolishing power.
Power protects itself, not the disempowered.
Instead of seeking to eliminate the super-rich, which would involve extreme measures and likely lead to societal instability, most societies focus on implementing measures to ensure that wealth and power are not concentrated to the detriment of the broader population. This typically involves implementing policies and regulations that promote economic fairness, reduce income and wealth inequality, and prevent the undue influence of the super-rich in politics and governance.
Efforts to address income and wealth inequality often include measures such as progressive taxation, social safety nets, education and workforce development programs, and policies that promote fair competition and economic opportunity for all. The aim is to strike a balance where individuals can accumulate wealth through entrepreneurship and hard work but within a framework that prevents extreme disparities and ensures that the benefits of economic growth are broadly shared.
Eliminating the super-rich as a goal is not compatible with democratic principles and the rule of law, which protect individual rights and freedoms. Instead, societies strive to create a fair and just system that allows for wealth creation while preventing abuses of power and wealth concentration.
A handful of individuals owning the entire world is against democracy and is creating instability. They write the policies they prefer, and ignore the rest.
You seem to regard the state as some kind of transcendental or otherworldly power, above and beyond the control over the material basis of society wielded through the construct of private property.
What type of elimination are we talking about here? Jail? Exile? Execution? Or just having their excess wealth taken away, so they are no longer super-rich?
Being extremely wealthy is, by itself, not a crime. But it would not be unreasonable to tax all income (or even wealth) above a large threshold at 50%, or even 90%. This would ‘eliminate’ the super-rich while not physically harming or punishing them.