Power and Greed
Power and Greed
Power is the objective and greed is the catalyst, when one accepts that power and greed are words that attempt
to explain rather more complicated emotions. But accepting the simplicity of generality I find them convenient in
creating a comfortable model of historic development that helps explain – at least for me – the cycles through which
governing seems to go, both long and short cycles.
I have played with portions of such a model before, but am returning because of recent thinking done related to
oligarchy – another simple word with multiple layers of meaning, but simplistically identifying rule of few over the
many. Not that there is any great insight involved in my ruminations; many, including professor Tytler, have
discussed the process if not the historical cycularity. The first known power structures were family and clan where
motive was first security and then tradition. Family tradition developed around male paternalism and merely
expanded in the clan structure with power to the strongest patron, with transition occurring when that patron was no
longer capable of fulfilling his leadership – power – obligations. Using the words greed and oligarchy in this context
are probably a stretch, but a convenient one, greed translating to desire to control (after being invested in the
responsibility to do so) and oligarchy assuming that no one really exercises power all by himself, but seeks advice
from others. In the earliest sense that meant those being led also advised.
Then agriculture was “discovered” and apparently the paternal leadership tradition continued. But agriculture
created wealth and wherever there is wealth there are thugs lurking to get a piece of it, and some sort of defense
had to be set up, and someone had to lead it: the beginning of oligarchy - the few (he couldn’t do it alone) with power
over the many. Why power? Because they who controlled the weapons and the soldiers that knew how to use them,
had the power. Fast forward to the break-up of the Roman Empire and the power structure changed some, but the
basis was the same: security. The few still had the troops and the weapons, which came with the wealth of land,
and the rest surrendered to them to save their skins. So it went throughout the Middle Ages, at the end of which
came trade and the merchant class who came to have all the money; and kings needed money. Gradually (in some
cases suddenly) kings gave way to new kinds of governments: still kings, dictators and also republics; all dominated
by the power of money. The most famous oligarchies were those of Italian city states, small groups of wealthy
merchants who wielded all the power. Nor did kings any longer rule without a host of advisors and tax collectors (but
then neither did Roman emperors) – empire or oligarchy? Whichever you prefer; it was rule of the many by the few.
So much for power, which has changed only in the details. The few had power initially because they had the
land wealth, the troops and the weapons and knew how to use them for protection. And why did all those other folks
flock to those whose power could protect them? Is greed too much of a stretch? Those who needed protection
wanted greedily to protect what they had, including their lives; but so did the powerful land owners, including the
kings and their men. From whom? From those who wanted to take it away from them: more greed. Greed after all
must be seen on a sliding scale and depends on the eye of the beholder.
The relationship between power and greed is, he with power wants either to protect what he has, or add to it,
often by taking what someone else has: greed. Adding money wealth to the picture didn’t change it much; power
was still based on security and the oligarchy hired the troops and weapons to provide it – from those who would take
it away, but the nature of government changed because suddenly there were new ways of stealing wealth, and
governments were formed to protect the wealth from those new ways, with laws and courts (and police), creating
secure foundation for merchants to do their business with protection from a new kind of thug, while the troops
provided protection from the old kind of thug.
Then there were revolutions. These came about because the oligarchs (of whatever ilk) flaunted their wealth
and took advantage of the power it gave them over others, which the others resented. Thus developed the power of
envy, something exploitable by those who wanted to share in what the oligarchs had (or to take it from them). What
is envy but greed? Latin America was a wonderful example of those that had, exploiting those that didn’t, with
revolutions, large and small, becoming fairly common, power changing hands with some regularity, while changing
little in character.
A new kind of oligarchy was born however in the process, using the power of envy to gain real power: the
republican politics of envy. Republican oligarchs were pretty much like their predecessors, but had to court the have-
nots to retain power, through elections, often doing so by using physical power to subvert and coerce. But others
began to figure out how to use the politics of envy (greed) to organize an opposition that became strong enough to
overthrow the oligarchs at the ballot boxes through charisma and populism, promising voters, even though the
promises almost never came to much because the new oligarchs had the same greedy mind set as the old
oligarchs (power) with no more resources. Well, that’s not entirely fair, but it really didn’t matter much because the
promises they had to make to the envious were always beyond their power to deliver, and that inability laid the
foundation for the next group of potential oligarchs. What has always remained consistent is greed for power and
envy greed for what the powerful have and often flaunt.
This brings us more or less to the present, where most governments are republics of one kind or another, that
at least pretend to be representatives of the people who must vote them into office. Run by Oligarchs (although the
few have become more as government has expanded) they must either keep the voters happy or maintain their
power through force; and keeping them happy usually means giving them whatever they want. That works pretty well
during the good times, but less well when things turn bad. Being greedy, voters don’t stand for giving back what they
have won (bribes from the oligarchy) and are quite ready to support whoever promises them whatever it is they want
to hear; the fact that oligarchs-to-be cannot deliver on those promises is usually beyond the understanding of
“greedy” and gullible voters, which sets up the next round of revolution, regardless of its means. Keep in mind that
greed in this context may be just maintaining what they have come to believe is their entitled level of survival.
So what has changed? Instead of just two players, haves and have-nots, and elite (who are the only ones who
generally are able to become part of an oligarchy) and the poor, there is something in between; we call it middle
class, but the middle between two extremes is not likely to be homogeneous, and particularly since republics are
never the same, neither is the class in the middle. This introduces a new term: elite. Oligarchy is elite, but with a
modern middle class, oligarchy and elite may be somewhat different because ruling is different in that power has
become both more diffused, but still interconnected. The result is that oligarchy and elite have become far more
amorphous than ever because of the complex nature of “ruling”. Of course there have always been rival factions
among the elite lusting for oligarchy, but those are no longer so clearly identifiable in complex republics because
middle class entails many more pockets of power, that although not oligarchic, are critical to oligarchic rule. These
include businesses, unions, military, academia and media to name but a few. And the structure through which
republican oligarchies wield power have become so massive it would be difficult to state at what point an oligarchy,
or for that matter the elite, ends and the ruled begins. In the American republic (and many others) there are many
pockets of the oligarchy (executive, legislative, and judicial for example; but also hierarchies of oligarchy such as
federal and state, and even local). Is a city mayor part of the oligarchy? Is a mid-level official in the executive branch
of the federal government? Are they among the elite? Captains of industry and college presidents probably would
not be considered of the oligarchy; but are they of the elite? How about vice presidents? College professors?
Here is where modern oligarchs and elites begin to depart significantly from the traditional definitions of the
past, merely because there is so much more to “ruling”. It is also the difference between modern republican
oligarchs and those of most developing countries, who remain much closer to the traditional version than the
modern version. What it comes down to is that the more there is to rule the more difficult it is to do with “a few”, and
the subsequent structure diffuses power widely; but then even the definition of power takes on a new meaning
because there are many kinds and levels of power and instead of it being wielded it is more a matter of coordinating
it. In the process oligarch and elite assume clearer differences, with oligarch pertaining to high government officials
and elite being the matrix in which they swim. Still the meanings can be obscure. Is a senator part of the oligarchy?
Is a state senator? Is there a hierarchy of oligarchy? Elite is even more vague and indistinct. What are the
qualifications for elite?
This begins to explain the concern many have for what has become the modern republican oligarchy: it has
become too large for traditional definitions of government. It can even be argued that it has become too large for
coordinating the power that it attempts to wield. It is also why those with libertarian bent oppose the direction it is
taking; it cannot do either what it is charged to do or what it attempts to do, and trips over itself in attempting to do it. I
would suggest that most of the reason this is so has to do with finance and economics. The transactions that must
be generated for a nation to function, and the financing necessary to support them and allow them to occur smoothly
are beyond the capabilities of “the few”. The framers of the U.S. Constitution foresaw this and attempted to head it
off, but many of our modern elite contend that the Constitution is an anachronism, no longer representing reality in
governing a modern nation.
So where does this leave us? Back at the subject of this essay: power and greed. Those that favor diffused
power, specifically limitations, argue that greed (self interest) must be allowed to operate in such a way that its
playing out will be counteractive; that is, that all the competing self-interests will react competitively to balance in
such a way as to yield the best overall results while rewarding individual ability, effort and resourcefulness. Those
that favor consolidated power would have an elite oligarchy wielding the power to determine how things are done
and who does them, in increasing detail, or as it has been explained, centrally planned. In the first example
competition rules and those that cannot compete fail; in the second example the goal is a leveling process that
attempts to approach a relative equality – or spreading of the benefit of all resources, including individual effort. For
many decades now we have been moving toward the second example, generally because there are always going to
be more losers than winners, and majorities by and large will opt for that which provides them with the greater
security – with, in many cases, the least effort.
Thus we seem to be returning to the original Middle Ages model of more clearly defined oligarchic elite and
dependent security under an auspices of egalitarian spreading of the wealth. The difference, of course, is only in
how the elite oligarchy is identified, by popular vote instead of birth or wealth. But once the elite oligarchy has been
identified by popular vote it becomes the elite and we come full circle back to power. If the oligarchic elite can wield
that power to satisfy the needs – and wants – of the citizenry all will be satisfied. If it cannot there will be
dissatisfaction. History suggests that we are in the middle of yet another cycle of power and greed.
Power is the objective and greed is the catalyst, when one accepts that power and greed are words that attempt
to explain rather more complicated emotions. But accepting the simplicity of generality I find them convenient in
creating a comfortable model of historic development that helps explain – at least for me – the cycles through which
governing seems to go, both long and short cycles.
I have played with portions of such a model before, but am returning because of recent thinking done related to
oligarchy – another simple word with multiple layers of meaning, but simplistically identifying rule of few over the
many. Not that there is any great insight involved in my ruminations; many, including professor Tytler, have
discussed the process if not the historical cycularity. The first known power structures were family and clan where
motive was first security and then tradition. Family tradition developed around male paternalism and merely
expanded in the clan structure with power to the strongest patron, with transition occurring when that patron was no
longer capable of fulfilling his leadership – power – obligations. Using the words greed and oligarchy in this context
are probably a stretch, but a convenient one, greed translating to desire to control (after being invested in the
responsibility to do so) and oligarchy assuming that no one really exercises power all by himself, but seeks advice
from others. In the earliest sense that meant those being led also advised.
Then agriculture was “discovered” and apparently the paternal leadership tradition continued. But agriculture
created wealth and wherever there is wealth there are thugs lurking to get a piece of it, and some sort of defense
had to be set up, and someone had to lead it: the beginning of oligarchy - the few (he couldn’t do it alone) with power
over the many. Why power? Because they who controlled the weapons and the soldiers that knew how to use them,
had the power. Fast forward to the break-up of the Roman Empire and the power structure changed some, but the
basis was the same: security. The few still had the troops and the weapons, which came with the wealth of land,
and the rest surrendered to them to save their skins. So it went throughout the Middle Ages, at the end of which
came trade and the merchant class who came to have all the money; and kings needed money. Gradually (in some
cases suddenly) kings gave way to new kinds of governments: still kings, dictators and also republics; all dominated
by the power of money. The most famous oligarchies were those of Italian city states, small groups of wealthy
merchants who wielded all the power. Nor did kings any longer rule without a host of advisors and tax collectors (but
then neither did Roman emperors) – empire or oligarchy? Whichever you prefer; it was rule of the many by the few.
So much for power, which has changed only in the details. The few had power initially because they had the
land wealth, the troops and the weapons and knew how to use them for protection. And why did all those other folks
flock to those whose power could protect them? Is greed too much of a stretch? Those who needed protection
wanted greedily to protect what they had, including their lives; but so did the powerful land owners, including the
kings and their men. From whom? From those who wanted to take it away from them: more greed. Greed after all
must be seen on a sliding scale and depends on the eye of the beholder.
The relationship between power and greed is, he with power wants either to protect what he has, or add to it,
often by taking what someone else has: greed. Adding money wealth to the picture didn’t change it much; power
was still based on security and the oligarchy hired the troops and weapons to provide it – from those who would take
it away, but the nature of government changed because suddenly there were new ways of stealing wealth, and
governments were formed to protect the wealth from those new ways, with laws and courts (and police), creating
secure foundation for merchants to do their business with protection from a new kind of thug, while the troops
provided protection from the old kind of thug.
Then there were revolutions. These came about because the oligarchs (of whatever ilk) flaunted their wealth
and took advantage of the power it gave them over others, which the others resented. Thus developed the power of
envy, something exploitable by those who wanted to share in what the oligarchs had (or to take it from them). What
is envy but greed? Latin America was a wonderful example of those that had, exploiting those that didn’t, with
revolutions, large and small, becoming fairly common, power changing hands with some regularity, while changing
little in character.
A new kind of oligarchy was born however in the process, using the power of envy to gain real power: the
republican politics of envy. Republican oligarchs were pretty much like their predecessors, but had to court the have-
nots to retain power, through elections, often doing so by using physical power to subvert and coerce. But others
began to figure out how to use the politics of envy (greed) to organize an opposition that became strong enough to
overthrow the oligarchs at the ballot boxes through charisma and populism, promising voters, even though the
promises almost never came to much because the new oligarchs had the same greedy mind set as the old
oligarchs (power) with no more resources. Well, that’s not entirely fair, but it really didn’t matter much because the
promises they had to make to the envious were always beyond their power to deliver, and that inability laid the
foundation for the next group of potential oligarchs. What has always remained consistent is greed for power and
envy greed for what the powerful have and often flaunt.
This brings us more or less to the present, where most governments are republics of one kind or another, that
at least pretend to be representatives of the people who must vote them into office. Run by Oligarchs (although the
few have become more as government has expanded) they must either keep the voters happy or maintain their
power through force; and keeping them happy usually means giving them whatever they want. That works pretty well
during the good times, but less well when things turn bad. Being greedy, voters don’t stand for giving back what they
have won (bribes from the oligarchy) and are quite ready to support whoever promises them whatever it is they want
to hear; the fact that oligarchs-to-be cannot deliver on those promises is usually beyond the understanding of
“greedy” and gullible voters, which sets up the next round of revolution, regardless of its means. Keep in mind that
greed in this context may be just maintaining what they have come to believe is their entitled level of survival.
So what has changed? Instead of just two players, haves and have-nots, and elite (who are the only ones who
generally are able to become part of an oligarchy) and the poor, there is something in between; we call it middle
class, but the middle between two extremes is not likely to be homogeneous, and particularly since republics are
never the same, neither is the class in the middle. This introduces a new term: elite. Oligarchy is elite, but with a
modern middle class, oligarchy and elite may be somewhat different because ruling is different in that power has
become both more diffused, but still interconnected. The result is that oligarchy and elite have become far more
amorphous than ever because of the complex nature of “ruling”. Of course there have always been rival factions
among the elite lusting for oligarchy, but those are no longer so clearly identifiable in complex republics because
middle class entails many more pockets of power, that although not oligarchic, are critical to oligarchic rule. These
include businesses, unions, military, academia and media to name but a few. And the structure through which
republican oligarchies wield power have become so massive it would be difficult to state at what point an oligarchy,
or for that matter the elite, ends and the ruled begins. In the American republic (and many others) there are many
pockets of the oligarchy (executive, legislative, and judicial for example; but also hierarchies of oligarchy such as
federal and state, and even local). Is a city mayor part of the oligarchy? Is a mid-level official in the executive branch
of the federal government? Are they among the elite? Captains of industry and college presidents probably would
not be considered of the oligarchy; but are they of the elite? How about vice presidents? College professors?
Here is where modern oligarchs and elites begin to depart significantly from the traditional definitions of the
past, merely because there is so much more to “ruling”. It is also the difference between modern republican
oligarchs and those of most developing countries, who remain much closer to the traditional version than the
modern version. What it comes down to is that the more there is to rule the more difficult it is to do with “a few”, and
the subsequent structure diffuses power widely; but then even the definition of power takes on a new meaning
because there are many kinds and levels of power and instead of it being wielded it is more a matter of coordinating
it. In the process oligarch and elite assume clearer differences, with oligarch pertaining to high government officials
and elite being the matrix in which they swim. Still the meanings can be obscure. Is a senator part of the oligarchy?
Is a state senator? Is there a hierarchy of oligarchy? Elite is even more vague and indistinct. What are the
qualifications for elite?
This begins to explain the concern many have for what has become the modern republican oligarchy: it has
become too large for traditional definitions of government. It can even be argued that it has become too large for
coordinating the power that it attempts to wield. It is also why those with libertarian bent oppose the direction it is
taking; it cannot do either what it is charged to do or what it attempts to do, and trips over itself in attempting to do it. I
would suggest that most of the reason this is so has to do with finance and economics. The transactions that must
be generated for a nation to function, and the financing necessary to support them and allow them to occur smoothly
are beyond the capabilities of “the few”. The framers of the U.S. Constitution foresaw this and attempted to head it
off, but many of our modern elite contend that the Constitution is an anachronism, no longer representing reality in
governing a modern nation.
So where does this leave us? Back at the subject of this essay: power and greed. Those that favor diffused
power, specifically limitations, argue that greed (self interest) must be allowed to operate in such a way that its
playing out will be counteractive; that is, that all the competing self-interests will react competitively to balance in
such a way as to yield the best overall results while rewarding individual ability, effort and resourcefulness. Those
that favor consolidated power would have an elite oligarchy wielding the power to determine how things are done
and who does them, in increasing detail, or as it has been explained, centrally planned. In the first example
competition rules and those that cannot compete fail; in the second example the goal is a leveling process that
attempts to approach a relative equality – or spreading of the benefit of all resources, including individual effort. For
many decades now we have been moving toward the second example, generally because there are always going to
be more losers than winners, and majorities by and large will opt for that which provides them with the greater
security – with, in many cases, the least effort.
Thus we seem to be returning to the original Middle Ages model of more clearly defined oligarchic elite and
dependent security under an auspices of egalitarian spreading of the wealth. The difference, of course, is only in
how the elite oligarchy is identified, by popular vote instead of birth or wealth. But once the elite oligarchy has been
identified by popular vote it becomes the elite and we come full circle back to power. If the oligarchic elite can wield
that power to satisfy the needs – and wants – of the citizenry all will be satisfied. If it cannot there will be
dissatisfaction. History suggests that we are in the middle of yet another cycle of power and greed.