![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good question. Bureaucratization and specialization mainly, which creates a specialized group of administrators in a hierarchical structure. This leads to The routinization of authority and decision making...basically the sorts of the things Max Weber delt with. And to a lesser and more cynical extent, the Peter principle. Hey...there's something we can add to the article! Thank you, unknown stranger:>-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or is there something funny when the article says that an "example that Michels used in his book was Germany's National Socialist Party."? The only book mentioned is his 1915 "Political Parties", which would predate the Nazi party (assuming this is what is meant; the link is to a disambiguation page). Is the reference really meant to be to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which Michel's entry indicates he was a member of until 1907? It looks like this was introduced in this diff. - David Oberst 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, there may be some copyright issues - chunks of the text are directly taken from this website. It is listed in the References section, but given the substantial usage should there not be more explicit notice? Also, the author asserts copyright, and I don't know if his release would be compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL? - David Oberst 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any sociology test on this theory? Nevermind, :) I have learned asking questions on wikipedia talk pages is usually futile. Travb ( talk) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This has got nothing to do with the Iron law of oligarchy. There is no claim being made that the "oligarchs" are bad people. It is pointing to a divergence of interests, IMO that whole section should be cut. Dejvid 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Prety much all of "Fiction and popular culture"as it stands. Dejvid 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've cut the section ==Fiction and popular culture== because it is unsourced and because it tottally misunderstands the Iron Law of oligarchy. The reason put forward by the theory as to why it is an iron law is that the people who get to fill higher positions have a level of competance that is not easily replaced. The problem is that undermines democracy in those organizations not that the people in high positions are crooks. Dejvid 08:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The vulgar proverb "shit floats to the top" has sometimes been considered a rephrasing of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, especially in the very common situations where the oligarchy is also a [[kleptocracy]] and/or a [[kakistocracy]].{{fact}} This idea has been mentioned in several books by [[Terry Pratchett]], including the phrase "other things float to the top except cream", "cream of society" being a phrase sometimes used to describe the upper classes.
I'd like to point out that this move was possibly a good example of the benefits of oligarchy. :-) Cernansky ( talk) 17:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I am moving anon's paragraph here; while interesting, it is both POVed and ORish.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to Iron Law of Oligarchy were reverted. Please don't add unreferenced information to Wikipedia. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is obviously subject to the Iron Rule for reasons quite apart from internal division between frequent and infrequent users. Editors will inevitably be those who are educated, wealthy enough to own or access a computer, and have sufficient time to compose or edit articles. Stating that Wikipedia "avoids the Iron Law" indicates a fundamental lack of comprehension of the doctrine in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhunyadi ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The writer Jerry Pournelle has proposed an "Iron Law of Bureaucracy", which builds on the Iron Law of Oligarchy in a somewhat depressing manner. Should we mention it in the "See also" section of this article? Perhaps as
(BTW, I've just edited the Jerry Pournelle article to mention this article.) Cheers, CWC 09:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have heard that Mohism takes a similar negative standpoint on oligrachy/monarchy. It could be similar to the Iron law of oligarchy. I don't know if this is worthy enough to get a mention on a Mohism perspective in this article. Komitsuki ( talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Does the concept of Iron cage have in common with the Iron law of oligarchy? Tried to include Iron cage in this article but decided not to. Komitsuki ( talk) 07:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the previous discussion of the matter is no longer applicable to the current version, I'm starting a new one. The claim that Wikipedia is somehow not subject to the law is extremely dubious, and the only reference given is by Piotr Konieczny, who has actively participated in the article's editing. That makes it unreliable, and almost certainly running afoul the WP:ORIGINAL policies. You cannot be an active editor, write the article, and use your own publications. Unless and until independent third party references are provided, I will oppose this claim. And I doubt any will ever be found, because Wikipedia is not immune. If anything, it's a perfect example of how the Iron Law holds, even in the face of new and unusual initial structures. mathrick ( talk) 14:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on Hayes and his "iron law of meritocracy" is irrelevant and is a blatant plug. If you want this to be here without introducing a pov you would have to include myriad supposed political laws - for instance mine: "the iron law of inefficiencies" which holds that the only effective restraint on oligarchy is that its construction inevitably introduces inefficiencies in a nonlinear relation to its amassed political power and thus leads inevitably to its own demise. The section should be removed. 24.4.8.75 ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Robert Wood
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good question. Bureaucratization and specialization mainly, which creates a specialized group of administrators in a hierarchical structure. This leads to The routinization of authority and decision making...basically the sorts of the things Max Weber delt with. And to a lesser and more cynical extent, the Peter principle. Hey...there's something we can add to the article! Thank you, unknown stranger:>-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or is there something funny when the article says that an "example that Michels used in his book was Germany's National Socialist Party."? The only book mentioned is his 1915 "Political Parties", which would predate the Nazi party (assuming this is what is meant; the link is to a disambiguation page). Is the reference really meant to be to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which Michel's entry indicates he was a member of until 1907? It looks like this was introduced in this diff. - David Oberst 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, there may be some copyright issues - chunks of the text are directly taken from this website. It is listed in the References section, but given the substantial usage should there not be more explicit notice? Also, the author asserts copyright, and I don't know if his release would be compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL? - David Oberst 04:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any sociology test on this theory? Nevermind, :) I have learned asking questions on wikipedia talk pages is usually futile. Travb ( talk) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This has got nothing to do with the Iron law of oligarchy. There is no claim being made that the "oligarchs" are bad people. It is pointing to a divergence of interests, IMO that whole section should be cut. Dejvid 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Prety much all of "Fiction and popular culture"as it stands. Dejvid 23:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've cut the section ==Fiction and popular culture== because it is unsourced and because it tottally misunderstands the Iron Law of oligarchy. The reason put forward by the theory as to why it is an iron law is that the people who get to fill higher positions have a level of competance that is not easily replaced. The problem is that undermines democracy in those organizations not that the people in high positions are crooks. Dejvid 08:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The vulgar proverb "shit floats to the top" has sometimes been considered a rephrasing of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, especially in the very common situations where the oligarchy is also a [[kleptocracy]] and/or a [[kakistocracy]].{{fact}} This idea has been mentioned in several books by [[Terry Pratchett]], including the phrase "other things float to the top except cream", "cream of society" being a phrase sometimes used to describe the upper classes.
I'd like to point out that this move was possibly a good example of the benefits of oligarchy. :-) Cernansky ( talk) 17:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I am moving anon's paragraph here; while interesting, it is both POVed and ORish.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to Iron Law of Oligarchy were reverted. Please don't add unreferenced information to Wikipedia. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is obviously subject to the Iron Rule for reasons quite apart from internal division between frequent and infrequent users. Editors will inevitably be those who are educated, wealthy enough to own or access a computer, and have sufficient time to compose or edit articles. Stating that Wikipedia "avoids the Iron Law" indicates a fundamental lack of comprehension of the doctrine in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhunyadi ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The writer Jerry Pournelle has proposed an "Iron Law of Bureaucracy", which builds on the Iron Law of Oligarchy in a somewhat depressing manner. Should we mention it in the "See also" section of this article? Perhaps as
(BTW, I've just edited the Jerry Pournelle article to mention this article.) Cheers, CWC 09:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have heard that Mohism takes a similar negative standpoint on oligrachy/monarchy. It could be similar to the Iron law of oligarchy. I don't know if this is worthy enough to get a mention on a Mohism perspective in this article. Komitsuki ( talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Does the concept of Iron cage have in common with the Iron law of oligarchy? Tried to include Iron cage in this article but decided not to. Komitsuki ( talk) 07:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the previous discussion of the matter is no longer applicable to the current version, I'm starting a new one. The claim that Wikipedia is somehow not subject to the law is extremely dubious, and the only reference given is by Piotr Konieczny, who has actively participated in the article's editing. That makes it unreliable, and almost certainly running afoul the WP:ORIGINAL policies. You cannot be an active editor, write the article, and use your own publications. Unless and until independent third party references are provided, I will oppose this claim. And I doubt any will ever be found, because Wikipedia is not immune. If anything, it's a perfect example of how the Iron Law holds, even in the face of new and unusual initial structures. mathrick ( talk) 14:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on Hayes and his "iron law of meritocracy" is irrelevant and is a blatant plug. If you want this to be here without introducing a pov you would have to include myriad supposed political laws - for instance mine: "the iron law of inefficiencies" which holds that the only effective restraint on oligarchy is that its construction inevitably introduces inefficiencies in a nonlinear relation to its amassed political power and thus leads inevitably to its own demise. The section should be removed. 24.4.8.75 ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Robert Wood