The views of some of the great thinkers and important documents on oligarchy are listed below:

1. Aristotle ruled by one as a monarchy, a minority as an aristocracy, and a majority as a democracy; Pen ~ fun ~ pavilion www.biquge.info

2. Maciver says that the majority or the general people have never ruled, and that the task of true rule is often in the hands of a few. The so-called constitutional system is the relationship between one person and the minority, especially the relationship between the minority rulers and the majority of the governed. In this sense, is the minority accountable to the many? Otherwise, it is an oligarchy.

3. Weber's New World American Dictionary explains: An oligarchy is a political system in which the right to rule is held by a few. It is also said that oligarchy is the rule of a country in the hands of a few. In other words, any country ruled by a few, or a political system dominated by a few, can be called an oligarchy. For example, in ancient Sparta, although there were two kings, it was actually an oligarchy.

4. Weber's New International Dictionary points out that oligarchy is a form of government ruled by a few, or a state ruled by a few. Usually an oligarchy is different from aristocracy because it is a rule of a few for the sake of greed or selfishness.

5. The Columbia Encyclopedia says: An oligarchy is a politics ruled by a few. If the minority of such rule is considered superior to the others, and is best suited to rule, then such politics is aristocratic politics. The term oligarchy also has a somewhat contemptuous connotation, and those governments that are oligarchy will, in fact, use other names for themselves and observe the appearance of certain other systems.

Historical OriginsEdit

Oligarchy can often be a tool for change. It insisted that the monarch or dictator share in power, thus opening the door for other elements of society to share power. One such example occurred in 1215, when the nobility of England united and forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta. This tacitly reduced the political power of King John and recognized the existence of the original oligarchy. As the English-speaking society continued to develop, the Magna Carta was amended in 1216, 1217 and 1225 to ensure greater rights for more people, thus setting the road to a constitutional monarchy in England.

An example of this is the Medici, a very powerful family from Florence, on the side of the ancient oligarchy families. An example of a modern oligarchy family is common in South Africa in the twentieth century or in ****** at the end of the twentieth century. The basic features of oligarchy are particularly perceptible here, since the form of oligarchy in South Africa is based on ethnicity, with a tacit agreement between English- and Afrikaans-speaking whites after the Boer War. They make up only half of the population, but they have a monopoly on all education and trade. Although this process has been in operation since the mid-18th century, it did not become official government policy until 1948 and became known as apartheid in South Africa. It wasn't until 1994 that democracy came to South Africa and a democratically elected government, dominated by a majority of blacks, put an end to the policy.

In some Latin American countries, the concept of oligarchy has been expanded to include government and military officials, and has hinted at the importance of nepotism, where only nepotistic people can enter the circle of power or be entrusted with military power, so that the ruling group can feel more at ease.

Some authors, such as the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian jurist/political theorist Gaetano Mosca, and the German sociologist Robert Michels, believe that any political system will eventually turn into an oligarchy (the golden rule of oligarchy). According to this thinking, modern democracy should be seen as an elected oligarchy. In this system, the actual distinction between political opponents is relatively small, because the career prospects of politicians depend heavily on the economic resources and media elites who do not have to be elected, such as the consortium that controls the media, the financiers who control the political donations, the power brokers who control the connections... Whoever is elected has to compromise and share power with them, so they become an invisible underground government that will continue forever.

According to Aristotle, oligarchy is a variant of aristocracy, and the aristocratic stance of wariness of the "mob" in response to the current reality may to some extent overlap with the direction of oligarchy, thus leading to the result of its purpose. Aristotle made a distinction between the various types of polities. He said that the polity of the polis is the government, the supreme authority of the polis, which is held by one person or a few or a majority. A government whose goal is the common good of the citizens is the real form of government, whether it is governed by one person or a minority or a majority, and a government that aims at the self-interest of the rulers is a metamorphosis of the real form of government, whether it is governed by one person or a minority or a majority. For the members of a polis, if they are true citizens, should share in the benefits of the polis. In this way, he divided the real (legitimate) forms of government into three categories: monarchy (kingship) ruled by one man, aristocracy (meritocracy) ruled by a few, and republic ruled by the majority. The three types of government that correspond to these three types of government are: tyranny is a variant of monarchy, oligarchy is a variant of aristocracy, and plebeian (democratic) is a variant of republic. Aristotle also pointed out that the definition of a form of government cannot be distinguished simply by the number of people in charge. In the case of an oligarchy and a peaceful government, the number of people in charge is only a fortuitous fact, and the real difference between the two is the difference between rich and poor: if the rich are in power, whether they are in the minority or in the majority, they are an oligarchy, and if the poor are in power, they are a plebarian. There are always fewer rich and fewer poor in the world, and the rich are only a few in a city-state, while freedom is enjoyed by all citizens, and wealth and freedom are the basis for the two factions of oligarchs and commoners to fight for the right to rule. Are the oligarchs and the plebeians divided according to the number of people in the dominant position or according to the amount of wealth? Because the rich are generally in the minority and the poor are generally in the majority, there are often two misunderstandings about the division between the two forms of government. But neither criterion is fundamentally the problem, what matters is that the people of the oligarchy and the people of the plebeians have a different focus on justice, the former in wealth and the latter in freedom. Aristotle said that they all saw only one side of themselves that justice illuminated.

China is one party, and the United States is two.

The national leaders of the United States are elected by direct referendum, and China's national leaders are elected by the people's congress by vote, and oligarchy refers to a form of rule in which a small number of people hold power. Plato took the rule of one person as the monarchy, the rule of the minority as the aristocracy, and the rule of the majority as the form of democratic government, and the corrupt forms of these three forms of government are **** politics, oligarchy and mob politics.

The majority or the general population has never ruled, and the task of true rule is often in the hands of a few. The so-called constitutional system is the relationship between one person and the minority, especially the relationship between the minority rulers and the majority of the governed. In this sense, is the minority accountable to the many? Otherwise, it is an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a political system in which the power of rule is held by a few. It is also said that oligarchy is the rule of a country in the hands of a few.

Oligarchy can often be a tool for change. It insisted that the monarch or dictator share in power, thus opening the door for other elements of society to share power.