Introduction

A critique of What Aristotle Knew About Oligarchy That We Forgot

This is a critique of the video:

Intro

0:00 imagine a society where the wealthiest
0:01 few don't just influence laws they write
0:04 them where they don't just benefit from
0:07 policies they create them where state
0:09 power isn't just swayed by wealth it's
0:12 wielded by it sounds familiar well over

This is a crucial introduction, setting the stage for what Aristotle would classify as an oligarchy, but we must be careful not to conflate this modern depiction too easily with Aristotle’s original terminology, keeping in mind there are more concepts, terminology and technology in the modern era which did not exist in ancient greece.

Aristotle saw oligarchy as a system where the wealthy few govern for their own interests, using their economic power to maintain political control. This stands in contrast to aristocracy, which, for Aristotle, was not about wealth but about virtue and capability.
In modern discourse, we often conflate wealth with capability, but Aristotle made a clear distinction. The best rulers, in his view, were not the richest, but those with the greatest virtue—those who ruled for the common good, not for personal gain. This fundamental shift in focus—from virtue to wealth—is a key distortion we must address throughout the critique.

Pop-culture distortion:
Today, oligarchy is often seen purely as rule by wealth. But in Aristotle’s time, wealth was merely one symptom of oligarchy—the real issue was the self-interest that wealth fostered, the way it corrupted the potential for virtuous governance.

0:16 2,300 years ago in his great work
0:19 politics Aristotle identified a system
0:22 of government he called oligarchy rule
0:25 by the wealthy few based on his studies
0:27 of history and politics he described how
0:29 this system arises how it maintains
0:31 power and why it's inherently unstable

Oligarchy, as Aristotle framed it, is inherently unstable because it governs based on the self-interest of a small group rather than the collective good. The few enrich themselves at the expense of the many, leading to resentment and social unrest. Eventually, this imbalance becomes unsustainable, and the oligarchy either collapses into tyranny or is replaced by revolution.

In our modern world, we see echoes of this in the growing wealth gap, the Regulatory capture of democratic institutions, and the social instability that comes with it. Yet, modern political discourse often fails to address the moral decay at the heart of these systems. Instead, it focuses on economic aspects without considering how these policies perpetuate the ethical failings of the entrenched political parties.

Aristotle’s Definition of Oligarchy:

In Aristotle's political philosophy, oligarchy is not merely defined by the presence of wealthy rulers, but by the intentions and ethical orientation of those rulers. He saw oligarchy as a perversion of the virtuous governance that aristocracy/elitism ideally represented. The wealthy few, when driven by self-interest, use their economic power to maintain political dominance, not for the common good, but for personal gain.

This differs significantly from aristocracy, where rulers are chosen for their moral excellence and capability to lead in a way that benefits society as a whole. The problem with oligarchy, Aristotle argued, is not wealth itself but the corruption of purpose that often accompanies it. In an oligarchy, wealth becomes the justification for power, and virtue—the commitment to the public good—is gradually replaced by self-preservation.

This sets the stage for understanding how modern societies, while seemingly democratic or meritocratic on the surface, can still slip into oligarchic structures when wealth and power are conflated with virtue.

Modern Distortion of Oligarchy:

In today’s discourse, oligarchy is often oversimplified to mean rule by the rich, but for Aristotle, it was deeper and more nuanced. Wealth in itself was not the core issue—it was the misalignment of values that wealth could foster. Aristotle warned that when political power is tied directly to wealth, it often leads to the corruption of ethical governance.

In modern societies, particularly in liberal democracies, we see the illusion of meritocracy that often masks oligarchic tendencies. We live in a world where wealth is frequently mistaken for capability. Politicians and leaders are often chosen or backed because of their financial clout or their ability to secure funding, not necessarily for their virtue or commitment to public service. This mirrors Aristotle’s critique of how oligarchic systems rise subtly, often through gatekeeping mechanisms that favor the wealthy while excluding those who might be virtuous but lack financial resources.

Virtue vs. Wealth: Aristotle’s Core Distinction

For Aristotle, the best rulers were not the ones who accumulated the most wealth, but those who demonstrated moral and intellectual excellence. He emphasized the importance of virtue—qualities like wisdom, justice, and self-control—in ensuring that leaders would act in the best interest of society rather than merely enriching themselves.

This is a crucial distinction that modern interpretations of oligarchy often miss. In pop culture, oligarchy is frequently depicted as a shadowy group of wealthy elites, manipulating society for their own benefit. Which is demagoguery, as all groups and organizations do not contain the entire populace. The demagogues themselves are never not small groups of wealthy individuals, while pretending to be the majority. In modern politics, this would be called astroturfing which became a dominant force in US politics after 2009 which has since morphed into Trumpism which suspiciously parallels Putinism which is similar to rule by siloviki or the deep state. While the shadowy group of wealthy elites is part of Aristotle's critique, the deeper problem lies in how wealth corrupts the intention behind governance. When wealthy individuals believe their riches entitle them to power, they often disregard the moral responsibility that should come with leadership.

In a true aristocracy, wealth might exist, but it is not the reason for political power. Power is instead tied to virtue—to the ability and desire to govern well. This is why Aristotle saw aristocracy as a just form of government, provided the rulers were chosen based on their moral and intellectual excellence, not merely their economic standing.

Cultural Relevance and Pop-Culture Distortion:

As we reflect on Aristotle’s critique, it’s essential to recognize how modern media and pop culture often oversimplify the concept of oligarchy. In popular discourse, oligarchy is reduced to a system of rich people in charge, without addressing the moral dimension that Aristotle placed at the center of the debate.

In modern propaganda, this manifests as a deep cynicism about wealth and power, where people assume that political systems are naturally rigged by "elites" as an excuse for anti-intellectualism. This cynicism, however, often misses the ethical critique Aristotle made—it’s not just the presence of wealth that’s the problem, but how wealth distorts the moral responsibilities of leadership.

We must therefore look beyond the simplistic portrayal of wealthy elites (and the masquerade of demagogues as not being wealthy, usually via ignorant behavior) and instead examine how self-interest and the pursuit of personal gain degrade the quality of governance. Virtue, for Aristotle, was a shield against this degradation—something sorely missing in modern oligarchies where wealth is mistaken for competence.

0:35 as you read Aristotle's description of
0:37 oligarchy you might start to recognize
0:39 some unsettling parallels to your own
0:42 society today from the concentration of
0:45 wealth to the influence of money in
0:46 politics Aristotle's ancient insights in
0:49 many ways feel eerily modern so in the
0:52 next few minutes we'll break down
0:53 Aristotle's blueprint of oligarchy
0:55 perhaps uncovering how its ancient
0:57 patterns may still occasionally Echo in
1:00 the corridors of power today to

Aristotle's 6 Forms of Government

Who RulesFor common good (True)For exploitation (Deviant)
OneMonarchyTyranny
FewAristocracyOligarchy
ManyPolity(Democracy)Democracy(Populism)
1:02 understand Aristotle's view of oligarchy
1:04 we first need to understand his
1:06 categories of regime types in his
1:08 typical systematic approach Aristotle
1:11 identified six distinct types of
1:13 government divided into two categories

This is central to understanding Aristotle’s political philosophy—there’s a direct link between the ethical orientation of a government and its legitimacy.

Aristotle’s three true forms (monarchy, aristocracy, and polity) are characterized by virtuous leadership aimed at promoting the common good. Meanwhile, the three perverted forms (tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, as Aristotle defined it) are characterized by self-interest—whether it’s the self-interest of one (tyranny), the few (oligarchy), or the many (democracy, in his usage, akin to populism when combined with Demagoguery as we understand it today).

Pop-culture distortion:
The modern use of the word "democracy" typically carries positive connotations— equality, and Consent of the governed. However, in Aristotle’s time, democracy referred to mob rule or populism—a government where the desires of the ruling caste could override rule of law and undermine justice and virtue. Aristotle’s concern was that, without legal frameworks and virtuous leadership, the mob leadership would simply govern in its own short-term interests, ignoring the well-being of the minority and the long-term health of the polis. While pretending to represent the majority.

Merit and Virtue in leadership:
Aristotle's aristocracy was not about heredity or wealth, but about virtue and meritocracy—qualities that modern interpretations often lose in translation. His polity was also an early vision of a constitutional government that blends democratic and corporate elements but is grounded in law and justice.

The Rise of Demagoguery and Manufactured Consent:

One of Aristotle’s key insights is that democracies are vulnerable to demagogues—leaders who exploit the emotions and fears of the populace to achieve power. While democracy theoretically represents the will of the people, Aristotle understood that this will is often manipulated. In modern terms, we might call this manufactured consent.

The danger of manufactured consent is that it disguises the self-interest of the ruling caste as the desires of the masses. Demagogues present themselves as champions of the people, but their real goal is to accumulate power—often through emotional appeals, misinformation, and propaganda. In doing so, they undermine the rule of law and rational discourse, leading to social instability.

This is why populism and demagoguery are so dangerous in Aristotle’s view—they offer the illusion of popular rule, but in reality, they serve the narrow interests of a select few. The “desires of the masses” are often a reflection of the ruling caste’s manipulation, not an authentic expression of the common good.

In contemporary politics, this is reflected in movements where political leaders, while claiming to represent the majority, actually advance policies that benefit a small wealthy tribe, often through astroturfing or media manipulation. This leads to the erosion of democratic institutions from within, as the true interests of the people are ignored in favor of short-term populist gains.

Merit and Virtue in Leadership:

One of Aristotle’s most profound insights is the role of merit and virtue in leadership. His concept of aristocracy wasn’t about hereditary rule or the entitlement of wealth—it was about ensuring that those in power were the most capable and morally excellent members of society. He envisioned an aristocracy where rulers were selected not because of their lineage or economic power, but because of their virtue, wisdom, and commitment to justice.

Modern misconceptions often lose this nuance. When we think of aristocracy, we tend to imagine an elite ruling class defined by birthright or wealth, but for Aristotle, the “best” rulers were those who embodied moral and intellectual excellence, not those with the most money or prestige.

This is why Aristotle considered aristocracy to be a just form of government—so long as the “best” were chosen based on their merit. He believed that virtuous leadership was necessary to achieve social harmony and justice. In a true aristocracy, meritocracy would ensure that the most qualified individuals—those with the greatest virtue and wisdom—would govern for the benefit of all, not just for the few.

Aristotle’s Vision of Polity:

Aristotle’s concept of polity is one of his most progressive ideas, as it represents an early vision of a constitutional government that balances elements of both democracy and aristocracy. Polity, as Aristotle defined it, was a mixed system, combining the best aspects of democratic and aristocratic governance.

In a polity, laws are central, and they serve as a check on both the masses and the aristocrats. The goal of a polity is to create a legal framework that ensures the common good, preventing both the self-interest of the wealthy elite and the passions of the castes from overwhelming the system.

In a modern context, Aristotle’s polity is somewhat akin to a constitutional democracy or a republic, where the rule of law governs all, and power is distributed in a way that prevents any single group from dominating the system. The key to the polity’s success is the presence of legal institutions and virtuous leadership to prevent the rise of tyranny, oligarchy, or mob rule.

Cultural and Philosophical Relevance Today:

In modern political systems, the ideas of virtue, merit, and ethical leadership are often pushed aside in favor of wealth, influence, and popularity. Aristotle’s insights remind us that true political legitimacy is not merely about who holds power or how many people support them, but about the moral quality of those in power and their commitment to the common good.

As we reflect on Aristotle’s six forms of government, we should be wary of the pop-culture distortions that simplify complex socio-political dynamics. In doing so, we risk ignoring the ethical responsibilities of governance, focusing only on wealth and majoritarian rule at the expense of justice and virtue.

1:15 there are the true forms (common good) and their
1:17 perverted counterparts (common exploitation) within the three
1:20 true forms we have monarchy first in its
1:23 ideal form the Monarch would be virtuous
1:25 and govern for the common good next is
1:28 aristocracy which is ruled by a select
1:30 few for Aristotle these aren't just the
1:32 wealthy or the well-born but the aristos
1:34 meaning the best most virtuous and most
1:36 capable members of society the third
1:39 true form is what Aristotle called
1:41 polity sometimes translated as
1:43 constitutional government this is a
1:45 mixed system blending elements of
1:47 democracy and oligarchy but with a
1:49 strong legal basis that prevents any
1:51 powerful group from abusing the others
1:54 now for each of these Aristotle
1:55 identified a corresponding perverted
1:57 form a government that shares similar
2:00 ities with its true counterpart but has
2:02 deviated from the path of virtue and
2:03 common good monarchy's corrupt twin is
2:06 tyranny as I presented in a previous
2:08 video and democracy is seen by Aristotle
2:11 as the perverted form of Polity rule

To note, what Aristotle was referring to as democracy then, is what we would call Demagoguery now, this is most because of how rare literacy was, and such it was assumed that only the aristocracy would be smart enough, to overcome the manufactured consent of populist tyranny. But his concept of how the Aristocracy would function within itself and as a part of leadership, was what we would today recognize as a egalitarian democracy. Hence the emphasis of his version of aristocracy, was not on riches or wealth, as is the modern conceptualization, it was about Merit and Virtue among other ideals.

While Aristotle never considered issues of caste, it's an important aspect of the neoBuddhist critiques of modern socio-political life.

Understanding Caste and Its Role in Cultural Warfare:

Rather than framing the political manipulation of "the masses" as simply populism or Demagoguery, we should understand it in terms of caste propaganda. Caste systems are designed to maintain hierarchies through narratives of division, particularly through the diffusion of responsibility and the manipulation of identity politics. The culture war—a term that is not used lightly—serves as the mechanism through which caste systems sustain themselves, generating internal conflict to prevent unity among the exploited.

The term "the masses" in demagogic rhetoric is not simply a reflection of popular will, but a strategic misdirection that shields the true ruling caste—an elite minority—from accountability. By claiming to represent the masses, authoritarian rulers deflect responsibility, using the illusion of popular support to justify their actions. This deception is central to the propaganda structures within caste systems, which have been refined over centuries of cultural warfare and genocides.

Caste systems don’t just operate on the basis of economic inequality but on social and ideological stratification, where each caste is conditioned to accept its role through narrative manipulation. This includes fostering the illusion of populism—that the ruling elites are merely serving "the will of the people"—when, in reality, they are reinforcing hereditary hierarchies and maintaining exclusive control over the state.

Cultural Warfare: A Tool of the Caste System

The culture war is not a mere social phenomenon; it is a war in the literal sense, funded and organized by states and often with the involvement of organized crime. It is a form of psychological warfare designed to fragment society, using identity politics as a tool to distract and divide. Caste systems are particularly adept at weaponizing identity politics, pitting different groups against each other to prevent collective action that might threaten their power.

In this sense, the term "the masses" is nothing more than newspeak—a way to camouflage the will of the caste as the will of the people. This linguistic trick is essential to the caste system’s survival, as it creates the illusion of democratic engagement while ensuring that true power remains firmly in the hands of a hereditary elite. The culture war distracts from the economic and political realities of the caste system, allowing ruling elites to continue their exploitation without facing meaningful resistance.

The Intersection of Caste and Propaganda:

Organized propaganda, is not a marginal or accidental feature of modern political systems. It is a deliberate strategy used to sustain caste hierarchies. In this light, we must recognize that the current instantiation of the culture war is part of a broader cold war, one that is not merely ideological but deeply tied to economic interests, geopolitical strategies, and criminal networks.

Spam, disinformation, and propaganda—often dismissed as nuisances—are integral parts of this organized crime structure. They serve to disrupt and disorient, creating a fog of confusion that prevents people from clearly seeing the caste structures that dominate their societies.

Disambiguating Class from Caste:

The conflation of caste and class is a deeply ingrained issue, exacerbated by thinkers like Nietzsche and by modern populist rhetoric. Disentangling these concepts is essential to understanding how power dynamics truly operate, especially in the context of propaganda and astroturfing.

Class and caste are often used interchangeably in modern discourse, but they represent fundamentally different social structures.

Class vs. Caste in Modern Propaganda:

The distortion that populist demagogues frequently employ is to conflate class with caste in order to inflate their legitimacy. By claiming to represent the interests of the upper class, these leaders obscure the fact that they are, in reality, part of an exclusive caste, disconnected from the broader population they claim to serve.

For example, when populists refer to the "wealthy class" or the "elite class," they give the impression that they are part of a much larger, more egalitarian group of wealthy individuals. However, in reality, they represent a tiny fraction of the upper class—perhaps only a few thousand individuals—who wield disproportionate power over the rest of society. This misrepresentation serves to legitimize their rule by creating the illusion that their interests align with those of a larger group, when in fact they are acting as a caste, ruling over the majority.

This form of astroturfing is particularly pernicious because it disguises oligarchic control as popular will. By blurring the lines between class and caste, these elites can manipulate public opinion and frame themselves as champions of the "common people" while they are, in fact, maintaining a closed, hierarchical structure designed to perpetuate their own privilege and control.

Implications for Political Discourse:

It’s important to be precise when discussing power dynamics in modern society. When referring to the upper class, we’re talking about millions of people—a significant portion of society who share a common socio-economic status. In contrast, when we refer to the ruling caste, we’re discussing an elite group of a few thousand individuals who control the major levers of power.

Populist leaders—whether right-wing or left-wing—often exploit this confusion, pretending to be part of the upper class while they are really part of a hereditary caste. This allows them to engage in class warfare, using identity politics and cultural narratives to create division while preserving their own dominance.

Caste systems, unlike class structures, are not only about wealth but about power, influence, and the ability to gatekeep access to those things. (libertarian nihilism? where?) This caste distinction becomes especially important in modern societies with large populations. When the wealth and influence of a few tens of thousand individuals are compared to the hundreds of millions in the middle or working classes, we see how distorted the power dynamic truly are.

Astroturfing and Identity Politics in Caste Systems:

Astroturfing—where elite groups create the illusion of grassroots movements—is one of the primary tools of caste propaganda. By framing their narratives as being representative of a larger class or social group, the ruling caste disguises its nature and legitimizes its actions.

This tactic has been refined over centuries of psychological warfare and propaganda, often leveraging identity politics to create artificial divisions within society. By encouraging tribalism—whether based on "race", nationality, or political affiliation—the caste system fractures any potential collective resistance from the lower classes. It’s a way to ensure that the majority remains fragmented and unable to challenge the hereditary elite. Which is justified internally via Social Darwinism

Understanding the difference between class and caste is essential to dismantling the myths that sustain modern propaganda. The "wealthy class" that populists often refer to is a misnomer—in reality, they belong to a much smaller, more exclusive caste, and their power is maintained through hierarchical control rather than the egalitarian principles implied by class.

By calling attention to this conflation and disambiguating class from caste, we can more accurately describe how power is consolidated and exercised in modern societies, especially when it comes to algorithmic advertising. This clarity is crucial for exposing the false narratives used by authoritarian demagogues and oligarchic rulers who pretend to represent the will of the people while entrenching their own caste-based hierarchies. 

2:14 by the masses but without the legal
2:16 limits of the polity where decisions are
2:18 driven by the majority's desires (manufactured consent of populism) rather
2:20 than the common good for Aristotle this

This is where Aristotle’s critique of democracy-as-populism becomes particularly relevant today.
In Aristotle’s view, a democracy without legal limits or virtuous leadership could easily devolve into a form of demagoguery, where charismatic leaders manipulate the emotions of the masses, leading to instability and the erosion of justice. This mirrors the rise of populist leaders today, who often use emotional rhetoric to win favor, even if their policies ultimately undermine the long-term stability and fairness of society.

Pop-culture distortion:
In today’s political culture, populism is often seen as a way for the disenfranchised to assert their power. But Aristotle would argue that without the guiding hand of virtue and law, populism is no more stable or just than oligarchy—it’s simply a different form of self-interest, where the caste masquerading as majority rules for itself rather than for the common good.

2:23 often leads to demagoguery instability
2:26 and the erosion of justice and finally

From Aristocracy to Oligarchy: The Perversion

2:29 we come to oligarchy as Aristotle notes
2:32 the poor and the rich fight with each
2:34 other and whichever side wins doesn't
2:36 set up a fair or popular government

This part introduces a critical conflict that Aristotle recognized but that has become even more relevant in today’s political landscape: the clash between the masses and the elites. However, Aristotle’s use of "masses" doesn’t imply that the common people are ever truly in control. Rather, the masses are often represented by demagogues who claim to speak on their behalf, while elite factions manipulate the system for their own gain. This false representation creates a political landscape where neither side truly serves the common good, but instead treats political power as a prize to be won.

In modern terms, we see this as the weaponization of governance, where the winners in political conflict use their newfound power not to balance or heal society, but to entrench their dominance. This leads to a system that serves the interests of the ruling caste, rather than the broader society, often disguising self-interest as public service. It is here that the myth of "rich vs. poor" emerges—a narrative that obscures the more insidious mechanisms of elite control and the exploitation of caste systems to maintain power.

Populism vs. Oligarchy: A False Dichotomy

In this conflict, the demagogue representing the masses—if victorious—might establish a form of populist democracy, which, in Aristotle’s eyes, is a perverted form of governance. Rather than being driven by virtue or the common good, it is often shaped by the desires of a specific caste or tribe, with the demagogue acting as a figurehead for the masses while serving the caste's interests. This populist form of democracy becomes a tool for demagoguery, where rhetoric and emotional manipulation take precedence over justice and long-term stability.

On the other hand, the elite, if victorious, would establish an oligarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a small, wealthy caste. This form of government, like populism, is also driven by self-interest, with the elite ruling class making decisions to preserve and expand their wealth and influence, often at the expense of the broader population.

Aristotle viewed both populism and oligarchy as deviations from the true forms of governance. Neither form guarantees justice or virtue because both are governed by self-serving impulses—whether it’s the demagogue manipulating the masses or the elite safeguarding their wealth. In this way, both forms of governance fail to provide a just and equitable society.

Pop-Culture Distortion: The Myth of the "Rich vs. Poor" Struggle

In today’s political discourse, we often see the struggle between populism and elitism framed as a binary choice—a conflict between the will of the people and the power of the wealthy elite. However, this is a false dichotomyThe reality is far more complex. In most cases, demagogues who claim to represent the masses are themselves members of an elite caste or are controlled by elite interests. They use the rhetoric of populism to mask the fact that they are simply tools of the elite caste, furthering the same power structures they claim to oppose.

This pop-culture distortion creates the illusion that the people have a say in governance, when in reality, they are often being manipulated by elite factions who have little interest in serving the public good. The manufactured consent of the masses, driven by propaganda, is often used to justify policies that primarily benefit the elite caste, while keeping the rest of society pacified with the belief that they are being represented.

Aristotle saw through this illusion, recognizing that true governance should not be about pitting the masses against the elites but about ensuring that virtue and the common good are at the heart of any political system. The false struggle between populism and oligarchy merely serves to distract from the real issue: the corruption of governance by self-interest and the failure to serve the collective well-being.

The Role of Caste in Modern Governance

The caste system plays a significant role in this dynamic. While populist movements claim to represent the interests of the masses, they are often simply the public face of a deeply entrenched caste system, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few thousand individuals or organizations. These elites use tribal narratives and identity politics to fragment opposition, preventing any meaningful challenge to their dominance.

The caste system operates through hierarchical control, where different levels of wealth and status are tightly regulated to ensure that only a select few have access to the levers of power. This is not a system based on merit or virtue—as Aristotle’s aristocracy would have been—but on heredity, loyalty, and the preservation of privilege.

By conflating the masses with the elite caste, populist rhetoric obscures the true nature of the caste system. The elite caste pretends to be part of a broader class struggle, but in reality, they are simply gatekeepers of power, preventing anyone from outside their ranks from challenging their authority.

2:39 instead they see political power as
2:41 their prize for winning and one side
2:43 sets up democracy while the other sets
2:46 up an oligarchy remember aristocracy is
2:49 ruled by the aristos or the best
2:51 oligarchy on the other hand is a
2:53 perversion of this ideal in an oligarchy
2:56 Focus shifts from the welfare of the
2:58 community to the interests of the rulers
3:01 themselves it's no longer about who is
3:03 most capable or most dedicated to the
3:05 common good but about who has the most
3:07 money or property in aristocracy leaders
3:10 are chosen based on their ability to
3:12 govern well and their commitment to the
3:14 public interest in oligarchy the path to
3:17 power is paved with gold and the purpose

Here’s where Aristotle makes his key distinction: aristocracy in his time referred to rule by the virtuous, the best—those who possess excellence in moral character and governance. This is starkly different from our modern use of the word, where aristocracy is often portrayed as a hereditary elite or a caste defined by wealth rather than virtue.

Aristotle’s aristocracy wasn’t about wealth or status, but about merit—about having the wisdom, virtue, and commitment to the common good. it was about moral excellence and the ability to govern well. Leaders in an aristocracy were expected to act in the best interests of society, not for their personal enrichment. This is crucial because it highlights how far modern systems have drifted from his ideals. In today’s political systems, wealth is often conflated with merit, and capability is conflated with financial success.

The contrast between aristocracy and oligarchy here is stark and critical. Aristotle’s aristocracy was about the best ruling for the best reasons—their ability and virtue made them suited to govern in the interest of the common good. But oligarchy is a perversion because it replaces virtue with wealth and capability with property.

This shift from aristocracy to oligarchy represents a moral and ethical decline. In aristocracy, the leaders are chosen based on their ability to govern well—their virtue, wisdom, and dedication to the public interest. But as wealth and property become the primary criteria for leadership, the focus shifts from serving the community to protecting the interests of the caste.

This is where Aristotle’s philosophy becomes a warning to modern societies. When wealth becomes the primary qualification for power, governance inevitably shifts toward caste-preservation and self-enrichment, rather than the public good. It’s not just about how wealthy the rulers are, but about how their wealth becomes the justification for their rule.

In modern times, this distortion leads to political systems where corporate interests, lobbyists, and wealthy elites hold disproportionate influence over government decisions. The focus shifts away from the public good and toward preserving the wealth and power of a select few. This isn’t just an issue of economic inequality—it’s a moral failure, where governance becomes a tool for the elite caste to maintain control.

This is where modern societies must take heed. When political power is concentrated in the hands of those who are wealthy, it often leads to the erosion of democracy and the marginalization of the masses. Those in power become more interested in preserving their wealth and enriching their allies than in promoting the common good. This is not just a political problem—it’s a moral and ethical crisis, where the well-being of society is sacrificed for the enrichment of a few, which becomes the prelude to economic disruption and potentially, collapse.

Modern Oligarchy:
Today, this is eerily similar to what we see in many modern political systems, where corporate interests, lobbyists, and elite families hold disproportionate influence over government decisions. This isn’t just a question of economic inequality; it’s a moral failure, where the well-being of the people is sacrificed for the preservation of wealth and power among a select few.

The resulting inequality is not just economic but moral. It reflects a failure of leadership to prioritize the needs of the many over the wants of the few. Aristotle’s aristocracy, based on virtue and merit, offers a model of governance that seeks to serve the common good. But when wealth and property replace virtue and capability as the qualifications for power, we are left with oligarchy—a system that serves only the elite and leaves the rest of society to struggle.

3:19 of rule becomes the preservation and
3:21 expansion of the ruler's wealth and
3:23 influence this transformation doesn't
3:25 happen overnight it's a gradual process
3:28 from usually polity democracy or
3:30 aristocracy and often subtle at first
3:33 perhaps wealth starts as just one factor
3:35 among many in selecting leaders but over
3:38 time it becomes the dominant or even
3:40 sole Criterion or maybe virtuous leaders
3:43 slowly begin to prioritize their own
3:45 interests over those of the
3:47 community Aristotle noted that

The Gradual Transformation from Virtue to Wealth in Leadership

Aristotle observed that the decline from virtuous governance to oligarchy is not sudden—it happens in small, almost imperceptible steps. This gradual transformation, which occurs over time, often begins with wealth being just one of many factors in determining leadership. At first, capability, moral integrity, and commitment to the public good still play important roles. But as wealth increasingly becomes equated with merit, it crowds out other values like virtue and wisdom.

The transition from virtue to oligarchy is marked by a shift in priorities. At first, virtuous leaders may genuinely govern for the common good, but over time, the temptation of wealth and power leads them to prioritize their own interests over those of the community. This process is insidious—it’s not that leaders suddenly abandon their virtues, but rather that self-interest begins to seep in, little by little, eroding their dedication to the collective welfare.

Sound Familiar? Modern Parallels to Aristotelian Decline

This transformation is eerily familiar in modern times. We can see corporate oligarchies slowly taking root through the erosion of democratic systems and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. Corporate interests, lobbyists, and political elites gradually gain influence, often using financial success as a proxy for merit. Over time, these financial elites reshape governance in their favor, making wealth the dominant criterion for power.

Pop-culture distortion:

In modern political discourse, the process of wealth-based political capture is often simplified, framed as a binary conflict between the masses and the wealthy, or portrayed as a competition between rich vs. poor. But Aristotle’s critique is far more nuanced. He understood that wealth in itself wasn’t inherently corrupting—it was when wealth became the primary qualification for leadership that moral decay began to set in. The problem isn’t the mere presence of wealth, but that virtue and commitment to the public good are gradually sidelined when self-interest becomes the driving force behind governance.

Subtle Corruption: The Role of Wealth in Political Advertising

A key aspect of this moral decay in modern systems is the way wealth influences elections—specifically through the use of advertising and media manipulation. When the ability to fund advertising becomes the primary determinant of electoral success, it signals a shift away from the value of ideas, policies, or even virtue. Instead, the focus is on dominating the airwaves, social media, and the public consciousness—not through the merits of one's platform, but through sheer narrative control.

This is where the insidious nature of wealth-based influence becomes clear. The process is subtle—it doesn't outright reject virtue, but instead drowns it out through a deluge of advertising, misinformation, and propaganda. This process often manifests in elections where candidates don’t even present substantive policies ahead of time, relying instead on character assassination, slogans, and vague promises to "come up with a plan" after securing victory. This turns elections into a spectacle of narrative warfare, where the content of governance becomes secondary to the manipulation of perceptions.

Erosion of Public Discourse: Regulatory Capture of the Election Process

In this way, the election mechanisms themselves become a form of regulatory capture, where private interests and wealthy elites control not just who can run for office, but how campaigns are conducted. The public square, once a place for genuine debate and discussion of ideas and policies, is slowly fragmented into tribalism. Rather than choosing leaders based on their virtue or their commitment to the common good, elections devolve into battles of who can fund more ads, spread more narratives, and discredit opponents—often without ever addressing the real substance of governance.

This is where oligarchic control and populism begin to overlap—both are perversions of the true forms of governance Aristotle described. In this system, tribal allegiances take precedence over ethical leadership, and the process of self-interest triumphs over the public good.

False Binaries and Gatekeeping

The final, and perhaps most damaging, aspect of this corruption is the gatekeeping effect that wealth-based elections have on smaller parties and genuine reformers. The wealthy elite, by controlling the funding mechanisms, reinforce a false binary that keeps power concentrated in a small number of entrenched interests. These elites, through their ability to fund campaigns, force political discourse into a limited set of choices, effectively excluding smaller parties, independent candidates, and any challengers who may not have the same financial backing.

This gatekeeping prevents the political system from adapting to changing environments or responding to the legitimate needs of the broader population. The result is a system that, while outwardly democratic, is fundamentally oligarchic in its function, serving the self-interest of a few rather than the public interest. It also leads to the moral illegitimacy of such governments, which fail to act as stewards of the common good and are instead driven by short-term material gain.

The Ethical Decay: Losing Sight of What is Truly Valuable

The ethical decay that Aristotle warned about comes from this subtle shift—what starts as merit-based governance devolves into a system where wealth is mistaken for capability, and self-interest becomes the guiding principle of those in power. This is not just a failure of governance but a moral failure as well. As wealth becomes the measure of success, the pursuit of virtue—that is, the pursuit of wisdom, justice, and the common good—is forgotten.

Aristotle’s insight reminds us that the transition from virtue to oligarchy is not only about political systems but about moral character. When leaders begin to value wealth above virtue, the entire ethical foundation of governance collapses. This is why oligarchy, for Aristotle, was not just a political problem but a moral catastrophe.

Cultural Warfare and Nihilism: The Broader Philosophical Impact

This process reflects a broader cultural shift in our times—a shift driven by nihilism and the rejection of moral truths. Today, we often see scientific utilitarianism—the idea that efficiency and profit are the highest values—displacing moral and ethical considerations. In such a world, calculations of profit and loss dominate decision-making, and the pursuit of virtue is seen as outdated or inefficient.

This is a form of cultural warfare, where nihilism—the belief that there are no inherent moral values—undermines the very foundation of ethical leadership. When leaders are guided only by utilitarian goals, such as maximizing wealth or efficiency, they lose sight of what is truly valuable—justice, fairness, and the well-being of the community.

Aristotle warned us of this danger: when wealth becomes the measure of all things, virtue is forgotten, and society drifts into oligarchy. And this drift doesn’t happen overnight—it’s a slow, cumulative process, a moral erosion that takes place over generations. By the time society recognizes the decay, it’s often too late.

Characteristics, Types, and Rise of Oligarchies

3:49 oligarchies like tyrannies are forms of
3:52 government where power is used to
3:53 benefit those in control rather than the
3:55 broader community so both systems are
3:58 self-serving but while tyranny is ruled
4:00 by one person and his close Circle and
4:03 oligarchy is ruled by a few more

Aristotle points out that both tyranny and oligarchy are self-serving forms of government, yet they differ primarily in who holds the power. Tyranny is ruled by a single individual, while oligarchy is controlled by a small group of elites. However, despite this difference in numbers, the core issue remains the same—in both cases, power is wielded for the benefit of those in control, rather than for the broader community.

Modern Parallels:

In the modern world, oligarchic tendencies are visible in the way corporate elites, lobbyists, and political dynasties consolidate power. Oligarchies often disguise themselves behind the facade of democracy, giving the appearance of legitimacy while quietly serving the self-interest of the few. This gives rise to a system where laws, policies, and economic decisions are tailored to benefit the ruling elite, even when outwardly presented as decisions for the public good.

One key aspect of modern oligarchies is that they manipulate legal and systemic frameworks to justify their control. For example, wealthy corporate interests use lobbying and campaign finance to shape laws that protect their wealth and limit competition. By doing this, they create a feedback loop where the wealth and power they accumulate allows them to reinforce their control over the political process, effectively gatekeeping access to leadership roles and policy-making.

Pop-culture distortion:

In popular media, oligarchy is often portrayed as a shadowy cabal, a group of secretive elites pulling the strings behind the scenes. While there’s a grain of truth to this, the reality is more subtle and insidious. Aristotle’s analysis reminds us that the real danger lies in how wealth and power slowly reshape the political landscape, often under the guise of legitimacy. Oligarchic elites may use the legal system to their advantage, passing laws that seem justifiable on the surface, but in reality, serve to entrench their dominance.

It is this slow, systemic manipulation—the passing of laws that favor certain industries, the monopolization of markets, or the exploitation of regulatory loopholes—that allows modern oligarchies to consolidate power without appearing as overt tyrannies. By maintaining the illusion of fairness and democratic participation, oligarchies can sustain themselves without the need for direct military control or violence—the hallmarks of classic tyranny.

The Illusion of Legitimacy:

Oligarchies, by nature, preserve the appearance of legal legitimacy, often operating within the existing political systems. This subtlety is why they can be more dangerous than tyrannies, which are often easier to identify and oppose. Oligarchs don’t need to rely on overt military power—instead, they rely on economic power and control over political institutions, ensuring that laws and policies align with their interests while giving the public the illusion of choice.

This is what makes modern oligarchies so pervasive—they don’t present themselves as obvious dictatorships but hide behind a carefully curated image of legitimacy. By dominating political discourse, controlling media narratives, and influencing public opinion through advertising and propaganda, they maintain their power in ways that appear justified within the legal framework of civil society.

From Oligarchy to Tyranny: The Slippery Slope

Aristotle also warns of the danger of oligarchies slipping into tyranny. As the ruling elite becomes increasingly self-serving, they may find it necessary to consolidate power even further to protect their interests. This often results in a move toward tyranny, where a single ruler emerges from the oligarchic elite to seize absolute control, usually justified under the banner of stability, order, or national security.

This transformation can happen gradually, as oligarchic rulers manipulate crises or public fears to centralize their power. In modern times, this can be seen when governments pass emergency powers, restrict civil liberties, or justify the need for authoritarian measures in the name of protecting democracy. But what truly happens is the entrenchment of tyranny, veiled behind rhetoric that disguises it as necessary or beneficial to the public good.

4:05 individuals but more importantly tyrants
4:08 often rely on military force whereas
4:11 oligarchs first and foremost gain and
4:13 maintain their power through their
4:15 wealth this is sometimes written into
4:17 the law but often it's just based on
4:19 informal influence which leads to laws
4:21 and policies that favor the wealthy the

Tyranny vs. Oligarchy: Blunt Force vs. Subtle Control

Aristotle draws a clear distinction between the way tyrants and oligarchs maintain power. Tyranny relies heavily on military force—a blunt instrument that is visible and direct. The tyrant’s control over society is enforced through fear, violence, and the physical suppression of dissent. This type of rule is overt, and because of its reliance on force, it tends to be unsustainable in the long term, as it fuels resentment and the desire for rebellion.

Oligarchy, on the other hand, is far more subtle. Rather than using military power, oligarchs maintain their control through economic dominance. Aristotle emphasizes that it is through wealth, not force, that oligarchs secure their grip on power. This form of rule is insidious because it operates within the legal frameworks of the state, often giving the illusion of legitimacy.

Oligarchs use informal influence—such as bribery, lobbying, and bullshit jobs —to manipulate the laws and policies in their favor. This allows them to maintain control without needing to resort to overt military force. Instead of suppressing opposition with soldiers, they use their economic power to shape the political narratives, ensuring that the rules of the game are rigged in their favor.

The Role of Informal Influence

One of the key distinctions between tyranny and oligarchy is how power is exerted and maintained. While a tyrant must control the population through visible displays of power, oligarchs wield their influence through informal means, like campaign financing, bribery, or lobbying. These actions are often legal or at least unregulated, which allows oligarchs to operate within the system without openly defying it.

Informal influence often leads to the creation of laws and policies that seem neutral or even beneficial to society at large but are actually designed to protect the interests of the ruling elite. This is why oligarchies can be so dangerous—they maintain control without appearing to be oppressive, giving the illusion that the political system is functioning properly when, in reality, it has been captured by private interests.

Cultural Warfare as a Tool of Control

Oligarchies also employ cultural warfare as a means of maintaining power. By manipulating the media, education, and the public discourse, they can pacify the masses and divert attention away from the real power dynamics at play. This type of control is much more subtle than the military repression used by tyrants, but it is equally effective.

Through the use of propaganda and populist rhetoric, oligarchs manufacture the desires of the masses. They create narratives that appeal to the public’s emotions and fears, while ensuring that the real decision-making power stays in the hands of the elite. This keeps the masses distracted and divided, preventing any organized resistance to oligarchic rule.

Pop-culture distortion:
In today’s political climate, the distinction between tyranny and oligarchy is often blurred. Oligarchies are portrayed as shadowy conspiracies or cabals, but in reality, they operate within the system—through legal loopholes, political influence, and the manipulation of public perception. The true danger is not the obvious oppression of a tyrant but the silent erosion of democratic values by those who wield economic power behind the scenes.

This is where Aristotle’s insight is particularly relevant—oligarchies rely on maintaining the illusion of democracy while consolidating power through economic means. Unlike tyrannies, which are easier to recognize and resist, oligarchies quietly shift the rules of the game in their favor, making it harder for the public to identify who truly holds power.

The Slippery Slope from Oligarchy to Tyranny

Finally, Aristotle also warns of the potential for oligarchies to slide into tyranny. As wealthy elites consolidate more and more power, they may feel compelled to resort to more authoritarian measures to maintain control, especially when faced with public unrest or threats to their dominance. This can lead to a situation where an oligarchy transforms into a tyranny, with a single ruler emerging to protect the interests of the elite at the expense of the public good.

In modern terms, this often happens when oligarchies manipulate crises or public fears to justify the centralization of power. Under the guise of national security, emergency measures, or economic stability, they strip away civil liberties and democratic processes, leading to a form of authoritarianism that resembles tyranny but with the same elite interests protected.

4:24 main point is that power is kept within
4:26 the wealthy few either through high
4:28 property qualifications for for holding
4:30 office or by making the process of
4:32 running for office too expensive for
4:34 most people this financial control
4:36 allows them to operate within existing
4:38 legal and political systems manipulating
4:41 these systems to suit their needs this
4:43 gives oligarchies an appearance of
4:45 legitimacy making them seem more stable

The Financial Gatekeeping of Political Participation

Aristotle recognized that one of the key ways oligarchies perpetuate themselves is through financial gatekeeping. By imposing high property qualifications or making the cost of political participation prohibitively expensive, oligarchies ensure that only the wealthy have a realistic chance of influencing the political system. This mechanism serves two purposes: it excludes the majority from meaningful participation and ensures that those who do participate are already aligned with the interests of the elite.

In the modern world, this dynamic is most clearly seen in the cost of running for office. The price tag for political campaigns—especially in larger democracies—has skyrocketed, meaning that candidates without access to vast financial resources or wealthy backers are effectively shut out of the political process. The requirement to raise millions (or even billions) to run a successful campaign creates a closed loop, where the political class remains tightly bound to the economic elite, further consolidating their power.

The Financialization of Politics

The financialization of politics has resulted in a system where wealth is the primary gatekeeper of power. This isn’t just about who can afford to run for office—it’s about how laws, regulations, and policies are written to benefit those who can afford to pay for lobbying or influence through campaign donations. This influence-buying undermines the notion of merit-based governance or representation of the public good, replacing it with a pay-to-play system where access and influence are reserved for the highest bidders.

Systemic Barriers vs. Individual Corruption

In modern pop culture, discussions of political corruption often focus on individual cases—scandals involving bribes or illegal donations—but these stories miss the broader systemic issues. The real problem lies in how the system itself is structured to favor the wealthy few, making it nearly impossible for the masses to compete on a level playing field. This is the heart of Aristotle’s critique: oligarchies reinforce themselves by making it financially impossible for anyone outside their ranks to participate in or challenge the political process.

Pop-culture distortion:
Media often frames corruption as a personal failing—a few “bad apples” taking advantage of their position. But Aristotle understood that the real corruption is in the systemic barriers that prevent the majority from meaningfully participating. By focusing too much on individual cases of corruption, we overlook the more insidious way oligarchies rig the system through campaign financing, super PACs, and lobbying. These mechanisms exclude the middle and lower classes from political power while maintaining the illusion of democracy.

The Illusion of Stability

Aristotle’s observation about the appearance of stability in oligarchies is especially insightful. Oligarchies often seem stable because they operate within the legal and political framework of the state, creating the impression of legitimacy. The presence of laws and institutions gives the facade of order, but this order is built on a foundation of inequality and exclusion.

Oligarchies are inherently unstable because they violate the principles of justice and disenfranchise the majority of the population. While they may seem stable on the surface, their refusal to address the needs and interests of the broader community creates a fragile balance that can quickly crumble when the masses begin to recognize their exploitation. This is a key difference between true stability—based on fair governance and the common good—and the illusory stability that oligarchies maintain through economic control and legal manipulation. One thing that is similar from rome to the modern era. is that the oligarchies often result in financialization of the economy, and then the economic exploitation of that financialization, results in political instability, including the disruption of financial markets, and then the disruption of manufacturing.
This is not dissimilar from what occurred during the collapse of the soviet union.

Modern Instability and Wealth Inequality

We see this playing out in modern societies where wealth inequality continues to grow, creating a deepening divide between the elite and the general population. While oligarchies may appear stable—thanks to their control over legal systems, media narratives, and financial networks—there is a ticking time bomb beneath the surface. The resentment and frustration among the disenfranchised masses build slowly, but they eventually reach a point where social unrest becomes unavoidable.

This instability, which Aristotle predicted, remains present in the modern world, even if it’s hidden beneath layers of legal frameworks and financial systems that give the illusion of legitimacy. The true threat comes not from external forces but from within—when the exploited majority can no longer tolerate their exclusion from power and opportunity.

4:47 than tyrannies but Aristotle still
4:49 considered them unstable at their core
4:52 oligarchs are skilled at using their
4:54 political power to protect and grow
4:55 their wealth they might pass laws that
4:58 give them lucrative government contract
4:59 s protect business monopolies or create
5:02 regulations that limit competition these
5:05 tactics can sometimes lead to Supreme
5:07 oligarchy where the wealthy have
5:09 unchecked power and ignore any
5:10 appearance of cultural or constitutional
5:12 limits in these cases decisions are made
5:15 solely for the benefit of the ruling
5:17 Elite rather than for the good of
5:19 society this disregard for the common
5:21 good is another trait that oligarchies
5:23 share with tyrannies making them

The Dangers of Oligarchy and Tyranny: Self-Interest vs. the Common Good

Aristotle made it clear that oligarchies and tyrannies share a dangerous flaw: they are both built on self-interest, rather than any commitment to the common good. In an oligarchy, the wealthy elite use their political power to protect and expand their wealth, passing laws and creating regulations that serve only their narrow interests. Over time, this unchecked accumulation of power and wealth leads to what Aristotle termed a Supreme Oligarchy, where the elite no longer even pretend to adhere to cultural or constitutional limits.

While tyranny might seem more brutal or obvious, oligarchy is often more insidious. The process is slower and more methodical, with oligarchs working within the system to restructure society in their favor. But both systems suffer from the same foundational problem: they ignore the broader needs of society, and in doing so, they undermine long-term stability.

Pop-culture Distortion: The Myth of Rational Oligarchs

In modern media, oligarchs are often depicted as cold, calculating figures, akin to homo-economicus—individuals who make decisions based purely on rational self-interest. These portrayals suggest that oligarchs are, in a sense, more stable or “better” rulers than tyrants, who are shown as emotional or reckless. But Aristotle’s critique challenges this view.

Oligarchs, in Aristotle’s eyes, are just as dangerous as tyrants because they also ignore the needs of the broader community. While they might seem more rational or restrained, their actions are still rooted in self-preservation, and this self-serving behavior ultimately leads to the erosion of justice, fairness, and social cohesion.

An example of this can be seen in modern political figures like Elon Musk, who wield enormous influence, not only through their wealth but also by using public platforms to shape political discourse. While often presented as rational or visionary, Musk's actions—such as public alliances with authoritarian figures like Donald Trump—show how oligarchs use their power to advance personal agendas, even at the expense of democratic values and social stability .
An example being https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/05/us/politics/elon-musk-trump-butler-rally.html

Unchecked Power and the Disregard for Constitutional Limits

One of the most dangerous aspects of oligarchy is the gradual disregard for constitutional or cultural limits. In a Supreme Oligarchy, the elite no longer feel bound by the rules that apply to others. This leads to an environment where laws are manipulated to serve only the interests of a few, while public institutions lose their capacity to hold the elite accountable.

This erosion of accountability can take many forms, including deregulation, tax loopholes, and the privatization of public goods. When oligarchs have unchecked power, they can limit competition, secure lucrative government contracts, and entrench monopolies without facing any meaningful opposition. Over time, this not only harms the economy but also weakens the democratic process, as fewer and fewer people have the ability to challenge the elite’s dominance.

The False Appearance of Stability

Oligarchies may appear more stable than tyrannies because they often work within the legal and political frameworks of a society. Their power seems legitimate because they play by the rules they’ve helped to write. But this is a false stability—one that hides a deep and growing instability beneath the surface.

The long-term risks of oligarchic rule come from the disenfranchisement of the majority. As the elite grow more powerful, the majority of citizens become increasingly alienated from the political process. This creates a ticking time bomb of resentment, frustration, and eventual social unrest. Aristotle’s insight was that no society can survive if it continues to ignore the common good in favor of self-serving elites.

In this way, both tyranny and oligarchy ultimately lead to the collapse of the state, as inequality, injustice, and resentment build until the system can no longer sustain itself. The veneer of stability offered by oligarchic wealth is fragile at best, and dangerous at worst, because it masks the underlying decay that threatens to destabilize the entire political system.

5:25 similarly dangerous to a state's
5:27 stability also like tyrants oligarchs
5:30 tend to distrust the general population
5:33 they might disarm the common people and
5:34 hire foreign mercenaries to guard
5:36 against potential uprisings this
5:38 reflects their very real fear of losing
5:41 control leading them to keep the poor at
5:43 Bay sometimes even pushing them out of
5:45 cities by making Urban living too
5:47 expensive or taking more direct measures
5:49 to maintain their grip on power
5:51 Aristotle pointed out that oligarchy
5:53 isn't a single uniform system but rather
5:56 a spectrum with different types on one
5:59 end there are extreme forms where only
6:01 the very richest have power in other
6:03 forms a small powerful minority controls
6:06 the government and while it might seem
6:08 open to those with modest wealth it
6:10 remains firmly in the hands of a
6:11 gatekeeping inner circle (or tribe) so how do these
6:14 oligarchies come to power Aristotle
6:17 explained that it often starts with a
6:18 gradual shift a small group of people
6:20 begin to accumulate more wealth which in
6:23 turn allows them to gain more political
6:25 influence as their power grows they
6:27 shape policies and institutions in ways
6:30 that further increase their wealth
6:32 creating a cycle where wealth leads to
6:34 power and power leads to more wealth A
6:37 system that seems Democratic or
6:38 aristocratic can start to slide into
6:40 oligarchy without most people noticing
6:43 over time certain signs become clearer
6:46 the wealthiest begin to control all key
6:48 government roles and institutions Merit
6:51 and ability become less important than
6:53 wealth (or loyalty to the wealthy caste) for gaining leadership positions

Aristotle’s insight here—that wealth gradually eclipses merit as the primary criterion for leadership—is something we see starkly reflected in today’s oligarchies. Loyalty to wealth, or to the elite caste, becomes the primary qualification for access to power.
In the modern context, this would be Revolving door politics and Dark Money which is the privatization of politics instead of reliance on public funding mechanisms.

The Erosion of Merit: How Wealth Eclipses Virtue

Aristotle’s critique of oligarchy captures an essential dynamic that remains true in modern political systems: as wealth becomes the primary criterion for leadership, merit and virtue are systematically pushed aside. Instead of leaders rising through their ability to govern effectively or their commitment to the common good, loyalty to wealth—or, more accurately, loyalty to the elite caste—becomes the key to political power.

Revolving door politics and dark money are two modern mechanisms that exemplify this dynamic. These systems create an environment where political office becomes not a tool for serving the public, but a means of entrenching economic interests. The revolving door between corporate positions and government offices allows elites to switch between private and public sectors, ensuring that policies are continuously shaped to benefit a small group. At the same time, dark money—the untraceable funds that flow into political campaigns—makes it possible for wealthy donors and corporations to influence elections without accountability.

This process undermines the very idea of democracy, as it shifts power from the public to a narrow elite, essentially privatizing political systems.

The Insidiousness of Displacement and Urbanization

As Aristotle noted, oligarchs distrust the general population, particularly the masses that they economically suppress. In response, they take measures to keep them disenfranchised and disempowered. One way they do this is by displacing people from urban centers, either through gentrification or by making the cost of living too high for average citizens. This process is not just about controlling space—it’s about controlling power by physically removing the potential for mass resistance.

In modern times, this is most clearly seen in how cities have become unaffordable for most people, leading to urban flight or displacement of lower-income communities. Wealthy elites control property and real estate markets, pushing up prices, and using financial instruments that increase housing costs. This serves two purposes: it consolidates control over lucrative urban spaces, and it prevents the majority from living in areas where they can organize and resist.

The displacement of populations serves oligarchic purposes in multiple ways. First, it concentrates the poorer classes in isolated areas where they lack political power. Second, it allows oligarchs to create urban fortresses of wealth, where the elite class lives comfortably while avoiding the social tensions that arise from growing inequality.

Militarization and Mercenary Forces

The hiring of mercenary forces or the use of private security is another method oligarchs use to protect their wealth. Aristotle pointed out how oligarchs, much like tyrants, would disarm the common people and rely on foreign soldiers or private military contractors to guard against potential uprisings. This tactic reflects a deep-seated fear among the elite of losing control over a disenfranchised population.

In the modern context, we see parallels in the militarization of police forces, the rise of private military contractors, and the use of private security by the wealthy to protect their assets. These forces don’t answer to the public, and their primary role is to safeguard oligarchic interests. For example, during moments of social unrest, we often see heavy-handed tactics employed by militarized police, whose role is not to protect the people but to preserve the status quo of the ruling elite.

The Gradual Shift into Oligarchy

Aristotle’s description of how societies slide into oligarchy is particularly relevant today. He understood that this transition doesn’t happen overnight—it is a gradual process, marked by a slow erosion of public institutions and the co-opting of governance by a small group of wealthy elites.

In the early stages, wealth may be only one factor among many in selecting leaders. But over time, wealth and loyalty to the wealthy caste become the sole qualifications for leadership. This shift occurs so gradually that it is often invisible to the majority. By the time the signs of oligarchy are clear, the system has already been transformed into one that serves only the elite.

In modern times, we see this in the way corporations and lobbying groups infiltrate the political system. Laws are rewritten to favor corporate monopolies, regulations are gutted, and loopholes are created to ensure that only the wealthiest individuals and businesses can succeed. This process is often hidden behind legal jargon or economic justifications, making it difficult for the public to grasp the extent of their own disenfranchisement.

The Decline of Merit and the Rise of Caste Loyalty

As Aristotle emphasized, in an oligarchic system, merit and ability gradually become secondary to wealth. Leaders are no longer chosen based on their ability to govern well, but rather on their loyalty to the wealthy caste. The elite create a gatekeeping inner circle, ensuring that political office remains within their control and that upward mobility for those outside their circle becomes impossible.

This leads to a consolidation of power within a small, tightly controlled group. Even those who may have modest wealth find themselves excluded from real political influence. The elite caste creates a system where loyalty to wealth—not the public good—is the deciding factor in political success. This erosion of meritocracy is one of the clearest signs of a society sliding into oligarchy.

Modern Parallels: Revolving Door Politics and Dark Money

In today’s political systems, this shift can be seen in the form of revolving door politics, where politicians and corporate executives move seamlessly between government positions and private industry. This ensures that the wealthy elite maintain control over key government roles and institutions, just as Aristotle warned.

Dark money also plays a crucial role in perpetuating oligarchies. When political campaigns are funded by untraceable private donations, it becomes impossible for ordinary citizens to challenge the influence of wealthy donors. The system may still appear democratic on the surface, but in reality, the rules have been rewritten to serve the interests of the elite.

6:55 and the idea that economic inequality
6:57 also justifies political inequality
7:00 becomes more accepted once an oligarchy
7:03 is established the people in power use
7:05 several tactics to keep their hold on
7:07 power first they use state power to keep
7:10 class distinctions in place reinforcing
7:12 social barriers that prevent people from
7:14 moving up (caste distinction) this might involve controlling
7:17 the education system to ensure that only
7:19 their children can afford the
7:20 opportunities for leadership roles or
7:23 enacting laws that make it harder for
7:25 those born into lower classes to build
7:27 wealth or social status gradually
7:29 oligarchies take control over the legal
7:31 system and lawmaking process they shape

The key to maintaining oligarchy is the ability to reinforce class (or caste) distinctions through legal and social systems. This is done by controlling access to education, property, and social mobility. By ensuring that only certain groups can rise to power, the oligarchy ensures its continued dominance.

In the modern context, this is typically done via propaganda and narratives, often spread via social media. Such as various forms of hyper-competitive tribalism which is little more than thinly veiled social Darwinism based around heredity (or the social construct of race) and is the core of caste based ideologies (such as Nazism).

What the Justice Clarence Thomas scandal says about ethics on the Supreme Court
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171384563/what-the-justice-clarence-thomas-scandal-says-about-ethics-on-the-supreme-court

The real reason for the Supreme Court’s corruption crisis
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/25/23697394/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-neil-gorsuch-corruption-harlan-crow-constitution

Reinforcing Class and Caste Distinctions: The Foundation of Oligarchic Control

The ability of an oligarchy to maintain power relies heavily on its capacity to solidify and reinforce class (or caste) distinctions. Aristotle recognized that once an oligarchy is established, those in power will actively shape legal and social systems to preserve their dominance, often doing so under the guise of maintaining stability or order. By controlling access to resources, education, and opportunities for social mobility, they prevent the majority of the population from rising up the social ladder, thereby ensuring that political and economic power remains concentrated in the hands of a small elite.

In modern contexts, this process manifests itself in various ways—most notably through the privatization of education and the weaponization of legal systems. For instance, by making higher education prohibitively expensive, oligarchies ensure that only their children and those from similarly wealthy backgrounds can access the tools and credentials necessary for leadership roles. Meanwhile, those from lower classes are left behind, forced into a cycle where debt and lack of resources limit their opportunities to achieve economic or social advancement.

Manipulating Legal Systems and Checks and Balances

One of the most effective ways an oligarchy maintains power is by capturing the legal system. Laws are shaped, not to serve the common good, but to entrench the power of the elite caste. As Seanɸ noted, the checks and balances that are supposed to protect democracy are often sold to the highest bidder. Whether it's through bribery, lobbying, or dark money funneled into campaigns, the oligarchy corrupts the mechanisms that should keep their power in check.

This distortion becomes particularly visible when we look at how Supreme Court justices and other legal officials are often compromised by private interests. Recent scandals, like those involving Justice Clarence Thomas, are not isolated incidents but are emblematic of a larger systemic issue where the legal and regulatory frameworks that should limit oligarchic power are instead co-opted to protect and reinforce the interests of the elite.

Social Mobility and Economic Barriers

The erosion of social mobility is another key strategy used by oligarchies. By creating systems that make it nearly impossible for those from lower classes to gain economic or political power, the oligarchic elite consolidates its position. For example, laws that favor the wealthy, such as tax structures that benefit large corporations and inheritance systems that allow wealth to be passed down with minimal taxation, ensure that the gap between the elite and the general population widens over time.

Pop-culture distortion:
In pop culture, this kind of systemic control is often portrayed as a natural order—one where the rich are viewed as inherently deserving of their wealth and status. The idea that economic inequality justifies political inequality becomes a norm under oligarchies. Modern media and propaganda often portray the wealthy as those who have earned their positions through hard work or intelligence, when in reality, wealth and power have increasingly become inherited privileges—guarded and passed down through elite circles.

Cultural Warfare: Legitimizing Caste Systems

Much of the modern propaganda used to reinforce caste distinctions is spread through social media, where narratives of hyper-competitive tribalism create divisions along racial, economic, and social lines. This form of cultural warfare is designed to keep people divided and distracted—focusing on conflicts within manufactured identities, rather than recognizing their common interests in opposing the oligarchic elite.

An example of this can be seen in the propagation of social Darwinism, a pseudo-scientific ideology that asserts that inequality is natural and that certain groups are more fit to rule than others. This ideology, while discredited scientifically, remains a foundational myth for caste-based ideologies, such as Nazism, which sought to legitimize the control of power by a narrow elite.

Cultural warfare, then, is not just a matter of propaganda—it is a tool used to ensure that the masses never unite against the oligarchic system. By keeping people fighting over manufactured identities and false distinctions, the elite caste maintains their grip on power without needing to resort to open repression.

7:34 laws to serve their interests often
7:36 claiming they are just protecting
7:38 property rights or maintaining economic
7:40 stability this can mean taxes that
7:42 benefit the wealthy or regulations that
7:44 protect their businesses from
7:46 competition eventually the wealthy begin
7:48 to exert influence over all crucial
7:51 aspects of society perhaps the primary
7:53 Industries major trade routes or the
7:56 means of cultural production furthermore
7:59 oligarchies rely on strong alliances
8:01 among Elites these aren't just political
8:04 alliances but also social and economic
8:06 connections like intermarriage between
8:09 powerful (organized crime) families shared business
8:10 interests and exclusive clubs these

Oligarchic Control of the Legal System: Manipulating Laws for Elite Interests

Aristotle’s critique of oligarchic governance is particularly insightful when we examine how oligarchies exert their influence over the legal system. By crafting laws that prioritize property rights, tax advantages, and business regulations that disproportionately favor the wealthy, oligarchies present their self-serving policies as rational governance aimed at economic stability or public interest. This is a powerful tactic because it creates the illusion of legitimacy, where the broader population is led to believe that these measures are necessary for the health of the economy, even as they primarily entrench elite power.

Modern examples:
A salient modern example of this is the Trump tax cuts of 2017. These tax cuts were sold to the public as a way to stimulate economic growth and create jobs, but in reality, they disproportionately benefited the wealthy and corporations, leaving the middle and lower classes to shoulder the long-term consequences, such as higher deficits and cuts to social programs. This dynamic fits Aristotle’s observation of how oligarchies manipulate laws to serve their own interests while presenting them as necessary reforms.

This type of financial manipulation extends beyond tax laws. In modern contexts, austerity measures and privatization of public services are frequently touted as solutions for economic crises, when in fact, they often result in reduced service quality, higher costs, and a further concentration of wealth among the elite. These policies are presented as inevitable or pragmatic, but their underlying purpose is to protect the financial interests of the wealthy few while the general population bears the burden of the consequences.

Another example being the Trump tax cuts while cutting funding for social welfare programs, and pretending to be the the desires of the masses.

Elite Alliances: Networks of Power

Another critical aspect of oligarchic power is the formation of strong alliances among the elite. These alliances are not just political but extend into economic, social, and even familial ties. In many cases, wealthy families and powerful business interests engage in intermarriage, joint ventures, and exclusive social clubs to create a self-reinforcing network of influence. This is how the ruling class maintains its dominance—by ensuring that political, economic, and social power remains within the same tight-knit group.

Organized crime and power:
In some instances, these alliances resemble organized crime networks, where familial ties and business interests are intertwined with political influence. By controlling key industries, trade routes, and the means of cultural production, these families and organizations ensure that outsiders are either kept out of the system entirely or allowed in only on their terms. The overlap between business interests and political power creates a system of gatekeeping that is nearly impossible to penetrate from the outside, further entrenching the power of the elite caste.

This phenomenon is particularly evident in industries like energy, media, and finance, where a few powerful families and corporations dominate the market, using their political influence to pass favorable regulations and monopoly protections that block competition. These elite networks consolidate power by ensuring that their economic dominance translates into political leverage, which in turn perpetuates their control over the legal and regulatory frameworks that govern society.

Pop-culture distortion:

The way oligarchy is often portrayed in modern media tends to focus on shadowy cabals or secretive groups, but in reality, these networks of power are often highly visible, operating under the veneer of legitimacy. Lobbying, dark money, and corporate influence on the political process are part of the normalized mechanisms that oligarchies use to influence public policy, but the impact of these mechanisms is no less insidious.

The real danger of oligarchic rule is not just the existence of wealth, but the way economic interests become indistinguishable from political power, leading to a system where the wealthy control not just the market but also the laws and regulations that govern society, subverting systems of democratic checks and balances.

8:13 connections create a tightly knit ruling
8:15 caste that works together to maintain
8:17 its control over time this concentration
8:20 of power and wealth often leads to a
8:22 decline in public virtue where personal
8:25 gain takes priority over the common good
8:27 among all members of society

Signs You Might Be Living in an Oligarchy

8:30 at this point you might be wondering how
8:32 these ancient insights apply to the
8:34 world around us while Aristotle was
8:36 examining the city states of ancient
8:38 Greece his observations on oligarchy
8:40 were remarkably astute and perhaps
8:42 relevant to a few other societies
8:44 throughout history let's consider some
8:46 signs that might indicate the presence
8:48 of oligarchic Tendencies first look at

Modern application of Aristotle’s framework:
Today, we don’t see city-states ruled by aristocratic families in the same way, but we do see corporate oligarchies, political dynasties, and global elites whose interests are intertwined with governments. These entities often operate across national boundaries, making the dynamics more complex than Aristotle could have anticipated. Elite capture comes into play here, particularly when Western elites are influenced or controlled by external powers (such as the CCP or Middle Eastern autocracies) to further interests that are not aligned with their own society’s well-being.

8:51 laws and regulations that benefit the
8:53 wealthy at the expense of the general
8:55 populace or Society at large this isn't
8:57 always obvious it might be hidden in
8:59 complex tax codes or subtle regulatory
9:01 structures imagine for instance a tax
9:03 code that allows owners of luxury Yachts
9:06 to claim significant deductions while
9:08 providing no comparable options for
9:10 ordinary citizens next examine economic

Modern example—Trump tax cuts:
The 2017 Trump tax cuts are a perfect modern example of this. While framed as a way to stimulate economic growth, these cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy and corporations while increasing the tax burden on the middle class and contributing to national debt. This aligns with Aristotle’s warning about how oligarchies manipulate the system to enrich themselves at the expense of the broader public.

Regulatory capture:
Another modern parallel is regulatory capture, where wealthy interests influence regulatory agencies to favor their businesses, effectively neutering regulations meant to protect the public good. This happens in sectors like environmental protection, pharmaceuticals, and banking, where industries lobby for looser regulations that increase profits while shifting risks or costs onto society and the environment.

9:13 policies do they tend to increase
9:14 concentration of wealth Aristotle noted
9:17 that oligarchies use their power to
9:19 further enrich themselves consider a
9:21 hypothetical Society where the
9:23 government consistently bails out large
9:25 corporations which hits the general
9:27 population with inflation higher taxes
9:30 and reduce Public Services over time

Wealth concentration is a hallmark of oligarchic rule. Aristotle’s insight that oligarchies use their power to enrich themselves remains relevant, especially when corporate bailouts are used as a mechanism to protect wealth. These bailouts may seem necessary in times of crisis (e.g., the 2008 financial crisis), but they often result in the general population bearing the cost through inflation, tax increases, and cuts to public services and infrastructure.

Corporate bailouts and economic inequality:
The 2008 financial crisis led to large-scale bailouts of banks and financial institutions, which stabilized markets but left ordinary citizens to shoulder the long-term economic consequences, such as wage stagnation, rising inflation, and austerity measures in many countries. This pattern fits Aristotle’s model, where oligarchs secure their own interests while leaving the general population to deal with the fallout.

9:33 this could lead to increased wealth
9:35 concentration another key indicator is
9:38 access to political office in a true
9:40 oligarchy only the wealthy can
9:42 realistically attain positions of power
9:45 as mentioned this might not be an
9:47 explicit law but picture a hypothetical
9:49 political system where running for
9:51 office requires millions in personal
9:53 funds or backing from wealthy donors
9:55 this effectively restricts political
9:57 participation to the rich or those

Campaign finance and political influence:
In the US, the cost of running for office has skyrocketed, particularly for federal positions like the presidency or Congress. Without the backing of wealthy donors, super PACs, or corporate interests, it is nearly impossible for anyone without vast personal wealth to run a viable campaign. This reinforces the oligarchic nature of political systems, where candidates are beholden to the interests of their financial backers, not the common good. The most obvious example being the Citizens united ruling, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

9:59 supported by the rich related to this is
10:02 the question of who has genuine access
10:04 to lawmakers and Regulators in an
10:07 oligarchic system the wealthy few have
10:10 the ear of those in power while ordinary
10:12 citizens struggle to make their voices
10:14 heard imagine a scenario where industry
10:17 leaders regularly hold private meetings
10:19 with lawmakers and Powerful bureaucrats
10:21 to discuss policy while requests for
10:24 meetings from ordinary citizens and
10:26 smaller organizations are usually denied
10:28 or ignored also look for a so-called
10:31 revolving door between government and
10:33 the private sector if you see a constant
10:36 flow of individuals moving between
10:38 positions of political power and high
10:40 level corporate roles that might
10:42 indicate the kind of close alliance
10:44 between wealth and governance that
10:46 Aristotle associated with oligarchy
10:49 picture a situation where a high ranking
10:51 official in the finance ministry leaves
10:54 his post for a lucrative position in a
10:56 major bank or a former Minister getting
10:58 hired in a corporation
10:59 within his former
11:01 portfolio social Mobility is another
11:04 crucial Factor Aristotle understood that
11:06 oligarchies work to maintain class
11:09 distinctions consider a hypothetical
11:11 Society where the cost of education has
11:14 skyrocketed to the point where only the
11:16 children of wealthy families can attend
11:18 universities without incurring crippling
11:20 debt thereby limiting opportunities for
11:22 advancement for those from less affluent
11:26 backgrounds remember Aristotle didn't
11:28 see these as isolated factors but as
11:31 symptoms of a political system that
11:33 prioritizes the interests of the wealthy
11:35 few over the common good no Society
11:38 perfectly fits any single model of
11:40 governance and elements that might
11:41 appear oligarchic could exist within
11:44 various other political systems the key
11:46 is to look at the overall pattern (of dispositions and narratives) and to
11:48 consider how political and economic
11:50 power are distributed and used the good

When Oligarchies Fall

11:54 news is that Aristotle found oligarchies
11:56 to be inherently unstable second only to
11:59 tyrannies in their short lifespan the
12:02 bad news is that they are often replaced
12:04 by another perverted form of government
12:07 he recognized that political regimes
12:09 fall for many reasons but he saw Revolt
12:11 as a primary cause particularly in
12:14 oligarchies one interesting observation

Revolt as a Primary Cause: The Tensions that Break Oligarchies

Aristotle observed that oligarchies are inherently fragile because of the underlying tensions they create between the ruling elite and the disenfranchised masses. In an oligarchic system, the concentration of wealth and power among a small group creates an environment of exclusion for the majority, who are denied access to the benefits of the system. These social and economic exclusions breed resentment, which builds over time as the underclass perceives the system as increasingly unjust. The eventual result, Aristotle argued, is often revolt—an explosive reaction to the inequalities entrenched by the ruling class.

While Aristotle emphasized the role of popular revolt in the collapse of oligarchies, it's important to note that his focus was on the dynamics of unrest and inequality as the catalyst. Revolts arise when systems of governance fail to adapt to the needs of the broader population, and when the elite are perceived to be acting solely in their own interests at the expense of the common good.

Modern Parallels: Revolt and Economic Mismanagement

In the modern era, the primary threat to oligarchic systems is not always violent revolt, but the slow erosion of their economic foundations through mismanagement and financial instability. While social unrest remains a significant factor, especially in movements like Occupy Wall Street or global protests against austerity measures, the real collapses of modern oligarchies often come from within, caused by their inability to maintain economic order and manage financial systems effectively.

Occupy Wall Street, for example, showcased the growing discontent with wealth inequality and the exclusionary policies that benefit the elite, but the movement itself was ultimately suppressed through modern policing, media narratives, and the criminalization of its more virtuous leaders. This is a hallmark of how modern oligarchies react to unrest—by using technological and legal tools to suppress revolt rather than address the root causes of inequality.

However, as seen in the collapse of regimes such as the Soviet Union, the real danger to oligarchic systems lies in economic mismanagement. The Soviet Union didn't fall solely due to popular unrest—its collapse was largely precipitated by its failure to sustain a functioning economic system and manage the global financial pressures it faced. This pattern repeats in other modern oligarchies: as they become more focused on hoarding wealth and concentrating power, they neglect the economic fundamentals needed to sustain long-term stability.

Economic Mismanagement as the Modern Cause of Collapse

Since World War I, financial and economic mismanagement has become the leading cause of the downfall of oligarchic and authoritarian regimes. These collapses often occur not because of violent revolutions, but because the systems of wealth and power that oligarchies rely on eventually break down under the weight of corruption, debt, and inefficiency. This type of internal collapse is less dramatic than the uprisings of ancient times, but it is just as definitive in its consequences.

For instance, when banking crises, hyperinflation, or currency collapses occur, they expose the underlying weaknesses of oligarchic systems, revealing how fragile they are despite their apparent control over political and economic structures. As oligarchies shift their focus from governing for the public good to protecting their own wealth, they often undermine the very economies that support their power.

The Illusion of Stability

While modern oligarchies may seem more stable than their ancient counterparts, largely due to their use of technological control and propaganda, the truth is that they remain just as vulnerable to collapse. The illusion of stability is maintained through financial manipulation, media control, and suppression of dissent, but this is a fragile balance. When the system of economic mismanagement finally tips over, the oligarchy often finds itself unable to maintain its hold on power, and the resulting collapse is both swift and decisive.

Aristotle’s insight into the fragility of oligarchies remains as relevant today as it was in his time. While the mechanisms of control may have evolved, the fundamental issue—that systems of governance built on self-interest and inequality are inherently unstable—has not changed.

12:16 he made was about the introduction of
12:18 new cultural or ethnic groups into an
12:20 existing political Community he argued
12:22 that this could be a significant source
12:24 of instability and conflict especially
12:26 if these groups don't quickly develop a
12:28 shared sense of ident idti or common
12:30 purpose with the existing population

Cultural warfare:
This is where cultural warfare becomes critical—elites often use social tensions or identity politics to distract the masses from economic exploitation. By manufacturing division along cultural or racial lines, oligarchies can fragment opposition and prevent the unification of the lower classes against their real exploiters.

12:32 internal conflict among the oligarchs
12:34 themselves is another major factor this
12:37 could be a situation where a small group
12:39 within the oligarchy becomes greedy and
12:41 attempts to monopolize all the offices
12:43 of power Aristotle noted that his
12:46 hyperconcentration of power often leads
12:48 to resentment and conflict within the
12:50 ruling class destabilizing the entire
12:53 system perhaps the most significant
12:55 threat to oligarchies in Aristotle's
12:57 view comes from popular revolt against
12:59 State sanctioned oppression the constant
13:02 tension between the rich and the poor
13:04 creates a powder keg of social unrest he
13:07 also noted the role of populist leaders
13:09 these figures would emerge and
13:11 capitalize on the people's discontent by
13:13 promising reforms while this will
13:16 sometimes lead to one of the three
13:17 so-called true regime types Aristotle
13:20 observed that they often result in a new
13:22 oligarchy or even tyranny another

Populist leaders:
Aristotle was aware that populist leaders often emerge in times of social unrest, capitalizing on the discontent of the people. These leaders promise reforms and justice, but their rise is often a double-edged sword—while some may bring about positive change, others may establish a new form of oligarchy or tyranny.

Modern parallel:
In recent years, populist leaders like Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, and Jair Bolsonaro have risen by tapping into the discontent of the masses, particularly those who feel left behind by globalization and economic inequality. While they often promise to "drain the swamp" or restore power to the people, they frequently end up entrenching oligarchic or authoritarian rule in new forms.

13:25 fascinating Insight from Aristotle
13:27 concerns the generational aspect aspect
13:29 of oligarchic decline he said that the
13:32 children of oligarchs raised in luxury
13:34 and comfort tend to become degenerate
13:36 and weak over time meanwhile the
13:39 children of the poor are hardened by
13:41 their difficult circumstances and become
13:44 tough this disparity equips the poor to
13:47 Rebel successfully against their

Conclusion & Outro

13:50 rulers as we wrap up Aristotle's
13:52 analysis of oligarchy provides us with
13:54 some Timeless insights into the Dynamics
13:56 of wealth and power in governance from
13:59 the gradual rise of oligarchic rule to
14:01 the tactics used by the wealthy few to
14:03 maintain their grip on power these
14:05 ancient observations May perhaps maybe
14:09 resonate a bit in our modern world I'd
14:11 love to hear your perspective are there
14:13 parallels you can draw to your own
14:15 Society feel free to share your thoughts
14:17 in the comments and if you found this
14:19 exploration valuable please consider
14:21 joining our patreon supporters get
14:24 access to audio only versions of our
14:25 videos and your support is crucial in
14:28 our mission to bring these Timeless
14:29 ideas to a wider audience thank you for
14:32 watching

Dodaj komentarz