What is Oligarchy? (Political Philosophy)

An explanation of Oligarchy in political philosophy terms, including Aristotle's views on Oligarchy, several types of modern oligarchies and the question of whether or not the US is an Oligarchy.
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andy Capone, Andreas Froestl, The Jack Bancroft, Jakey, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, SirSpammenot Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, Thomas Kristic, Panos Tsivi, Jesse Willette and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#oligarchy #politicalphilosophy)

[@FreeWill_is_unintelligible]

Hi Carneades! Is there any chance you’ll ever make a video on the epistemology of “self-evident” truths?

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

At some point, it is a great idea! As a skeptic, I am not sure that any truths are self evident, or that we would be justified in believing them if they were. But that would be a good argument to raise there.

[@enterthevoidIi]

What would be an example of self evident truth?

[@FreeWill_is_unintelligible]

@@CarneadesOfCyreneThat is great!! And precisely the answer i was hoping for, not going to lie! Also, i know there is a distinction (albeit, a quite confused one at times) between “Self-evident” and “Self-justifying” propositions! Is there any chance you’ll cover the latter kind of propositions/truths as well? Also, my apologies for the many questions! Oh and i thank you for the great content you bring up on KZbin! It’s a treat to see you on the feed

[@life42theuniverse]

If any truths were ‘self-evident’ would you need a video to explain them? Growth on a finite planet is unsustainable kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYukanukpZiUjJY

[@FreeWill_is_unintelligible]

@@life42theuniverse Sure thing! :) There’s a lot more to ‘self-evidence’ that meets the eye! As Carneades said himself, they may very well be problematic enough for us to even be able to cast some kind of doubt upon them!

[@Pfhorrest]

“the owners of capital will be fewer than the labor class” only if ownership of capital continues to be withheld from the labor class, which it would not if they had political power. then the labor class would not outnumber the owners, because they would be the owners. the rationale to balance the interests of the owners against the workers is thus entirely self-serving: the owners say they need more power against workers because otherwise they wouldn’t get to be a non-working owners anymore. but too fucking bad for them, their separateness from the workers doesn’t justify the need for power merely to enforce that very separateness itself.

[@enterthevoidIi]

@@Pfhorrest amen

[@dreyri2736]

Owning "capital" does not automatically give you power

[@Pfhorrest]

@@dreyri2736 I didn’t say it did. But since you bring it up, it does, because if you don’t own capital enough for your own use then you have to use someone else’s on whatever terms they demand, so conversely if you own more than you need for your own use then you can make demands of others in exchange for letting them use it.

[@jackdarby2168]

Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman. But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, as will be evident to any one who considers the matter according to the method which has hitherto guided us. As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be attained about each one of them

[@ksastrophy]

I'm from Russia and sadly my country lies only on the monarchy-oligarchy spectrum.

[@russellwhisenant5554]

I thought the challenge would be distinguishing oligarchy from aristocracy, but now it sounds more like plutocracy. My problem with the concept of civil oligarchy is that it breaks the trade-off between oligarchy and democracy. Civil oligarchy is not an alternative to democracy, but it's natural consequence. It will be so as long as many millions of the poor and middle-class naturally look to the rich and famous for the leaders they can rally behind. A very recent example of this is the election of Donald Trump with populist support from those who resent the educated elite and other minorities. Needless to say, Donald Trump meets the definition of a civil oligarch and was heavily supported by the similarly oligarchical Elon musk. You can say that they used their wealth to deceive and manipulate the poor, but that again is a natural failing of democracy. Just because something's bad doesn't make it undemocratic.

[@deepashtray5605]

Libertarianism is an ideological argument for government via oligarchy.

[@DMS_dms]

Sir Are you a skeptic who thinks no knowledge is possible?Or You think some are?And How do you know any of ethics infact almost 99%of philosophy which is based on our impressions as hume pointed out is True?And You also know problem of solipsism right?So Also there is no way to say we are not in a brain in a vat then claiming of any knowledge should be arrogance In your view right?

[@ipdavid1043]

usa now is❤

[@tomollie]

Yup this is the US now. Too much wealth to a select few !

[@checkoutoftheabove9809]

Hey sorry if this is bothering but, would nobles be a kind of elite, they rule From birth right and Tradition witch is a source of power, just makeing sure I got it

[@checkoutoftheabove9809]

Feel free not to read

[@tomollie]

@@checkoutoftheabove9809 I’d ChatGPT that question yes & no maybe a few maybes

[@dreyri2736]

Wealth does not make you an oligarch. Bezos does not exert much if any influence over my life or yours. He couldn't even get his own news organization to let go of a meaningless cosmetic change. But Curtis Yarvin, a popular political theorist right now, would agree that the US is and has always been an oligarchy.

[@checkoutoftheabove9809]

@@dreyri2736 can you give me more, just trying to put together what your saying, sorry am a bit dense

[@chesslover8491]

Went you your page and got a threatening message my phone has been hacked. Are you a scammer?

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

I think one of the plug-ins on the website may have gotten some virus. I am trying to transition to a new hosting platform to fix it. I am not a scammer, but keeping all the llugins on a WordPress site up to date and secure is a heavy lift.

[@chesslover8491]

@ BTDT. Wordpress security is nonexistent. Take care.