[onlooker]

I post this because it has fascinated me for the last number of years this psychological dynamic that we see especially evidenced in the wealthy and people in positions of power. Throughout history, I think many of you would agree we have been ruled quite poorly. The ruling class have shown at times disdain for the ordinary folk and in the meantime have shown at times almost psychopathic behavior in the quest for ever greater power and wealth. Are we not witnessing insatiable greed on the part of corporations in the present. Have we not witnessed the quest to build empires by out of control leaders sometimes only one, ie. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napolean, Alexander the Great etc. Have we not seen throughout history how the ruling rob and steal utilizing the privileges of being in power. Is not the common characteristic of those in power and the super wealthy an insatiable desire for more of the same. I ask you all what are your views on this subject?

[onlooker]

haha, yes I put it in this forum thinking it is more frequented then the medical issues forum

[Kylon]

There are a few reasons why the wealthy are like that-

1. Individuals with no ethics and a tremendous amount of ambition have a short term advantage when it comes to acquiring wealth. People who are good at parasitic political actions have a huge long term competitive advantage at keeping their wealth from others who would redistribute or compete with them. This tends to selective pressure for more vicious individuals among the wealthy.

2. The wealthy depend more on wealth, and less on family and community, and therefore often have the belief that neither community nor family are worth as much, because they aren't dependent on them. Same with cities. If a poor man irritates his community or makes his city unhappy the people will retaliate, and the poor man has little defense. If the rich man irritates the community by his unethical actions, so long as whatever he did was legal, at worst he will have to pack up and go to another city, which if he has gutted local industry and stolen from the population will be no problem as he now has more money than he had before.

3. The powerful come to realize that collectively their real enemy isn't each other, it's new comers wanting into the club of the powerful, and the masses below them. They also realize that many of them who gained their wealth unethically are parasites, and have good reason to fear the people below them for all the horrible things that should be crimes that they have done. Therefore they have to be extra ruthless, extra intimidating, extra manipulative in order to feel secure, and more importantly stay in power. They have to induce a degree of fear, misery, and confusion that generates collective apathy in order to prevent the masses from demanding redistributive action.

4. The wealthy are often very conservative because they believe that since everything is working for them, everything is working. This inclines them to try and crush new invention and innovation in all areas of life, causing civilization to stagnate, not improve, and not be able to invent/innovate fast enough to keep up with resource depletion. While this isn't something that comes from a place of malice, it's end effect is to inflict tremendous pain on society, as society doesn't have the necessary means to effectively fix it's problems faster than they are created, ultimately leading to more problems than solutions, while the aggregate effect of is to lead society to a state of complete societal collapse.


Not all wealthy people behave unethically, or acquire their wealth unethically. The problem is that those that do dominate society, because their talent is literally dominating and controlling other people's resources and lives. At extraction rather than production.

[onlooker]

thanks for that insight Kylon, just detecting that it seems your explanations of behavior of the wealthy seems quite nicely to apply to people in high level positions in government. Governments are ruthless to stay in power, to gain more power, to quell inner revolution or redress etc. Also, of course the wealthy have exploited their wealth in relation to the government to gain special privileges for their kind (class), for their profession or industry or to simply get the government to look the other way if they were doing things not quite legal. In turn people have sought to be in the government knowing that is a way to get rich. Finally, people in government have tended to be the more wealthy people because they are more educated and because generally their is a price to enter and be rise the ladder in the political arena.

[KaiserJeep]

I want everyone to remember that wealth is relative. The US has welfare recipients who make 50X to 100X the average World income.



....and still complain.

Just so that you understand, if you live in the USA on Welfare, YOU are the 1% oppressing the 99%, by World standards.

[davep]

I posted some info on another thread that may be useful in this discussion http://peakoil.com/forums/the-illuminanti-cabal-and-nwo-t71158-40.html#p1242914. It explains the mechanisms of modern finance and how it generally increases debt for all but the financial elite.

[dinopello]

Throughout history, I think many of you would agree we have been ruled quite poorly.

Throughout history is a pretty broad brush. If you really think that are you arguing for anarchy ?

This may be controversial, but I'd say that in modern times, in the USA we haven't treated "our rulers" very well. They basically have to give up any semblance of a normal private life and are subjected to ridicule and derision. If you a competent, decent man or woman and want to serve your community, you really have to think twice. The pay will be much less and your family will be stressed, your kids called ugly and and you will have to spend much of your effort begging for money to compete to get elected.

Who would do that ? I've had friends run in local elections for county and school board and that stuff goes on now in local politics, amplified by social media and local news blogs. We get the "rulers" we deserve.

Now, maybe the political and media systems have been manipulated by the cabals so that it precisely attracts the type of manipulate-able people that the rich and powerful want. But the common people certainly play along.

[Poordogabone]

Well, since the beginning of civilizations about 10,000 years ago, poor countries subsidized rich countries, poor folks subsidized rich folks. It is simply the way things always have been. Everyone is greedy, an evolutionary survival trait that all primates possess although some are more clever and ruthless at it than others. Those formed the elite ruling class. Then there is this cyclic moment in time, you can call it peak greed, when the pressure cooker blows up and the elite ruling class being a tiny minority looses everything including their head.

In recent history some but not all of the wealthy ruling class figured out that there was an alternative to getting your head chopped up and losing everything, concessions and reforms. So all you have to do is relieve some of that pressure before the cooker blows up. All of a sudden you have social security and unemployment checks and food stamps and welfare. Now some of the not so clever elite class does not accept that and proceed to erode those reforms and concessions. Since they can buy the political system for very cheap, it is not surprising that we are where we are right now with the pressure in the cooker building up again.
Just another cycle.

[americandream]

It all depends on how the forces of material dialecticism give effect to social relations. If social relations are structured around a largely stupified masses led by a few privileged, fuedalism is its countours. If social relations are structured around wealth through exertion for personal gain against a backdrop of the fittest surviving, then predation will emerge.

Man is sufficiently conscientised, as a species, to rise above the immediacy of subjectified instinct and is at the cusp of objectified social relations. Time will tell.

[ennui2]

Might as well thrown in the obligatory reference to Ishmael here. Follow the link. Not that I necessarily buy the theory, but there are multiple ways to explain 'evil' (let's face it, we're talking about evil, not just greed).

[Pops]

All sorts of psych experiments have shown that even people who are randomly given an advantage quickly see themselves as deserving that advantage; even when they, and everyone around them, know the getting was random.

The Monopoly game experiment gave one random player much of the money and property right at the outset of the game, everyone knew exactly what was going on, yet that player soon started gloating and acting cocky and even ate more pretzels than the other players. Then there was the "jail" experiment way back where one group of college kids were designated "prisoners" and another group as "guards" and it wasn't long before the guards treatment of the prisoners became so close to violence the experiment was stopped early.

We've all been to the DMV window or a loan agent's desk or somewhere similar and experienced bureaucrats wielding their authority over a miniscule realm (often as many as 3 Different Forms That Must Be Filled Completely!) as if they were in charge of the Holy Grail. Or behind the unsatisfied lady at the store who embarasses everyone, except herself, with her silly impression of "a person entitled to the best."

And then there are message board moderators.

So, not to excuse the rich and powerful, but hard to expect them to act any different than other mere mortals. All humans are subject to the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

Just found this, rom here: http://www.spunk.org/

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

"Michels (1911) came to the conclusion that the formal organization of
bureaucracies inevitably leads to oligarchy, under which organizations
originally idealistic and democratic eventually come to be dominated by a
small, self-serving group of people who achieved positions of power and
responsibility. This can occur in large organizations because it becomes
physically impossible for everyone to get together every time a decision
has to be made. Consequently, a small group is given the responsibility of
making decisions. Michels believed that the people in this group would
become enthralled with their elite positions and more and more inclined to
make decisions that protect their power rather than represent the will of
the group they are supposed to serve. In effect Michels was saying that
bureaucracy and democracy do not mix. Despite any protestations and
promises that they would not become like all the rest, those placed in
positions of responsibility and power often come to believe that they too
are indispensable, and more knowledgeable than those they serve. As time
goes on, they become further removed from the rank and file...

"The Iron Law of Oligarchy suggests that organizations wishing to avoid
oligarchy should take a number of precautionary steps. They should make
sure that the rank and file remain active in the organization and that the
leaders not be granted absolute control of a centralized administration.
As long as there are open lines of communication and shared decision making
between the leaders and the rank and file, an oligarchy cannot easily
develop.

"Clearly, the problems of oligarchy, of the bureaucratic depersonalization
described by Weber, and of personal alienation all are interrelated. If
individuals are deprived of the power to make decisions that affect their
lives in many or even most of the areas that are important to them,
withdrawal into narrow ritualism (overconformity to rules) and apathy are
likely responses.

Lord It's Hard

.

[onlooker]

Very nice post of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy", I just add that this makes much sense. Our Institutions seemed to be organized in this hierarchy type model. We should have organized in a more horizontal manner. Power and authority diffused among entire group. For example, I envision a future government whereby their is a council call it the council of wise persons. They are chosen for being unusually bright but also having had an exemplary history of behavior . Society tries to reach some consensus and then they present their decision before the council who also deliberate upon it and either accept it or reject it and offer something better. But in no way are they the final or only decision makers, they are simply their to streamline the process and to give advice and critique when needed. We have had something similar in our histories with the wise men or elders being consulted.

[americandream]

The Iron Law of Oligarchy contemplates a fully instinctual species. Humankind however is conscious and has the capacity to override this law. The capacity.....

[onlooker]

One way or the other we shall see the fall of the Oligarchs or Elite in this century. Either the world goes to the birds in which case it may be every community or individual for themselves or the masses rise up to replace this system with something that has a chance to meet the needs and wants of the masses.

[Pops]

That's the whole point, oligarchs are not a product of wealth or surplus but of organizations. If you are waiting for the end of the overseer you are gonna have a wait.

Don't matter the organization: commune or communist nation, Co-Op or capitalist hedgemon; they all stratify into some kind of hierarchy and eventually the "higher-archs" start to take advantage.

[Poordogabone]

The Iron Law of Oligarchy contemplates a fully instinctual species. Humankind however is conscious and has the capacity to override this law. The capacity.....

"The capicity....."
I agree, the difference between the rest of the Darwinian world and us is that we have a conscience. So in theory we should one of these days get are s**t together. 12,000 y Since agriculture/societal organization, 700/800 generations.....

[americandream]

The Iron Law of Oligarchy contemplates a fully instinctual species. Humankind however is conscious and has the capacity to override this law. The capacity.....

"The capicity....."
I agree, the difference between the rest of the Darwinian world and us is that we have a conscience. So in theory we should one of these days get are s**t together. 12,000 y Since agriculture/societal organization, 700/800 generations.....

Not conscience, but the capacity to objectively assess risk, ie, consciousness. Conscience is a subjective and unreliable tool, objective consciousness is not.