This is a reactionary list of whos who. Of course we live in a corporate world,and deals will be done. What gets me though is that word OLIGARCHY,and i thought i knew English.

A valuable and timely article Tim.

- just got back from the Age online poll, where the figures are 88 to 12 percent against trusting the Federal Government with water management.

It would seem that you are not an island.

It is almost certain that the bloodsuckers are after privatising our water, so relentless is their search for a free lunch. This one will have to carefully watched.

I think the author is assuming that it is the amount of money a political party has which determines who will form a government. While I concede that is generally true it is not always the case.

So what would a government not beholden to business do ? I would say pretty much like any other government in a capitalist state would do.

For example, if Rudd rips up WorkChoices business will be disappointed but knows the more collectivised system Rudd would propose would have minimal impact on profits and would likely be balanced (or outweighed) by other business friendly policies like higher R&D, better infrasatructure spending, more investment in education etc .

After all our political alternatives are inevitably limited by the prevailing mode of production - the job for our politicians is to manage this system, not create a new one. That is a job for wistful revolutionaries and the "new Left" caudillos in Latin America.

Politics is an oligarchy. The major parties block independents by making it hard to enter their turf. It's World Championship Wrestling. Look at Whitlam and Fraser, best of friends.

"Australian banks and mining companies have become tightly cross-linked."

The big power is with control of nominee and superannuation companies, generally own by Banks. At a Westpac AGM c. 1992, the small holders put a motion of no confidencein the Board, only to be squashed by the AMP Society with its massive proxy vote. [AMP had a common director with Westpace at the time.]

Moreover, had the Westpac Board been following its own Credit Policy and Risk Assessment guidelines, it is hard to see how it would not have avoided the mess in which it found itself, with Western Australian entrepreurs and the like.

Being on the Westpac Board was [is?] a win-win situation. Do a good job [the old Board didn't] and reap the benefit. Do a bad job and be pushed out, and receive a huge payout: cashed up, buy-in low, and ride the "J" curve share price, when the toe-cutters sack staff and cut back on expenditure.

[An unfortunate aside to Westpac's 1992 trough was the fools broke-up and sold-off two excellent historically significiant in-house libraries, to pay its bills.]

[I recall, at the time of the AGM complaining, the Westpac Chairman about having to run an eight hour meeting. Poor lamb. Having to work a full day. It's tough at the top. Maybe, he deserves another knighthood.]

'while Fairfax is dominated by Liberal Party hacks';

Come on, give me a break. Seriously, you must me way left of centre to see Fairfax, ie The Age, in that light.

It is an interesting subject. The problem as I see it, is that we have a too small a political, executive and media class in this country.

The main problem with all western democracies now is the separation between government and business.

Business and Government means only one thing, business investing in government and in return for their investment, they desire a return on investment$$$$. Often by way of corrupting the free market - regulation, monopoly deals etc

If there is an oligarchy, it can only be that the people have abducated thier sovereignty through apathy.

Then it seems, the only true solution is too increase political involvement by the masses. How to do it? That is the real question.

"the key to Labor’s electoral success, later this year, is an accommodation with the Australian oligarchy."
Well, that is an incorrect call by a long way. Mr. Rudd does not sit in space twiddling his thumbs; his active history has been to support all the attacks on work and social life. And it is in this type of ruthlessness that has brought him to the attention of the powers that be! Remember the billion dollar media magnates picking him recently? Doesn't the media tyrants of this world like Mr. Murdoch play a cruel and treacherous hoax on workers by promoting and inflating demagogic scoundrels as statesmen?
And what are the political positions both Labor and Liberal share? A real aggression towards social conditions - debasement of every aspect of social life. Right wing nationalists who jail and scapegoat immigrants in concentration camp conditions including toddlers. A loathing and frothing that workers might get any social justice or genuine wage rise in line with the ongoing high costs of living. The frequent attempts to boost the rate of exploitation of workers. Moreover, driving the majority of the population into poverty and carrying out a wrecking operation in the hospitals, schools, unis, rail, every social sector etc., Behind their actions historically is the exploitation of every aspect of social life in order to maximise profits - turning everything into the holly dollar. Their actions can eventually break society down including their support for wars of plunder. Even the economic system can crash as all the wealth is shovelled into a very small portion of society. Rural life is beset by a lengthy economic crisis and deprivation magnified by severe drought. Whilst Labor and Liberal want to divert the water supplies to their well heeled cronies. Privatization means private wealth in the hands of a miniscule few at the expense of the larger majority.

So ordinary Australian citizens depend on television and to a much lesser extent the papers for their world view and for much of what they think of as social contact.

These days they don’t even have unions to try to “educate” them and provide an alternative view of things.

I also note that an hysteria of greed seems to have overtaken the ordinary citizens of the English speaking world. Their interests have contracted down to how much their houses have appreciated and the size of their SUVs. The consequences for their children doesn’t seem to be problem and neither does the huge debts they and their countries are running up.

This makes them even easier to control.

So lets see, we now have societies that encourage what they previously tried to prevent, a massive transfer of wealth and power to the top one tenth of one percent thus giving that tiny elite both the means and the motivation to corrupt society. This kind of indicates we are in a lot of trouble: All they have to do is control the media (which they already do) and really, no one else counts.

Mind you, I have to admire the elite’s style. I mean, this kind of thing has happened before, for example in the late Roman Empire where a transfer of the taxation burden away from the wealthy to the free farmer class led to them becoming surfs.

This time they seem to have an even better scam.

A Feudal landlord had to provide real, actual, income producing wealth in the form of land in exchange for his claim against the serf. Under the new scheme the citizen/serf is simply encouraged to take out huge loans to purchase grossly overpriced, poorly constructed McMansions, SUVs and other worthless crap.

The debts generated and the fiat currency involved are more or less conjured out of nothing (much too complex to discuss here). This time, the elites are exchanging something they more or less make for free for real claims against real people, that is, for real wealth

Stephen Heyer

At last. An article published with at least a half of the truth in it.

Being a Coalition site it is not unexpected that Labor is seen as the oligarchy. However this applies to both major Parties. A small group of white males run the show. That's it. Under orders from a very few.

Oligarchy is indeed what we have as our form of government. That oligarchy though consists of both Parties, small groups of white Australian males.

Well said. Back to the dictionary for some. Compare the word with democracy. Not even close is it?

We have all known this information for longer than we care to remember. The move toward presidential style elections simply confirms it.

Rudd of Howard is simply a choice between who will tow the line better for the rich with symbolic concessions to the poor.

Vote for a minor party.

The current 'experiment' with neosocialism in Latin America is a sharp stick in the eye to the high farce of the so called civilised "West". Senor Chavez, like it or not Rupert, is instigating a revolution in U.S plundered Latin America, one over which New Ltd has scant control. Only when the cupboards are duly and similarly cleaned out here-Media barons deposed and/or disposed of first-up- will the people again hold any kind of real sway again.

Remember it was the the Greeks that once hauled ordinary citizens off the streets and shoved them into genuine public service regardless of what station they occupied on the rungs of life. That was the one and only time democracy could have ever been called truly "participatory".

All the hand wringing over who's next after Howard is pointless. With Big Kev 'the Corporate Christian' (or the dread Costello) it will be just be further twiddling with the policy knobs and corporate kowtowing masquerading as change.

Well done Mr Anderson. Someone needed to point out the stark reality of our lot. We are indeed mired in a pathetic and sorry state of affairs. Begs the question: how to extricate ourselves from this labyrinth? Some sort of revolution/calamity is needed to awaken us from this horrid dream. A wild card into the pot: what about a New Ice Age?

“Vote for a minor party” don’t think so. Tried that. They all seem to be taken over by loonies or plants from the major parties using them to discredit any new parties.

I watched this in the Greens. I and a bunch of friends joined and were very active in the early days when we thought it had a very good chance of becoming a mayor, moderate party. However, it seemed to us that it was (at least in Queensland) firmly under the control of a little inner group who drove policy in directions we though both prevented it from ever becoming a mainstream party and worse, were just plain wrong.

Nope, only way out for Australia now is probably a Hugo Chavez style democratic semi-dictator (Hey! Howard is already half way there) who uses the new powers Howard has thoughtfully installed for the sham war on terror and the not sham war on the unions to unwind the whole basis of the Australian Oligarchy suddenly and without warning.

This would be a complex undertaking, involving, among many other things:
1. Completely redesigning the tax system to once more favor the poor and limit the excessive accumulation of wealth at the top.
2. Completely change and diversify media ownership, and make sure it stayed diversified.
3. Change the way political parties are funded making sure that wealth, whether corporate or private, could never again buy undue influence. This would certainly involve the kind of heavy legal penalties and mandatory jail time Howard has introduced with great enthusiasm in areas ranging from “terrorism” to guns.

Unfortunately, I suspect some retrospective laws would be required. Retrospective laws are rightly regarded as very dangerous, but things have gone so far that I don’t see any way round using them.

Maybe the Howard style retrospective-law-when-you-don’t-have-a-retrospective-law approach could be used: Ship offenders off to an allied country that did have a law against whatever they did when they did it.

China perhaps? I’m sure they’d be glad to do a few favors for their little brother down here.

the laboral party is the oligarchy. they must juggle the requirements of their supporters, for being on top is not always simple or comfortable. they pass the baton back and forth from one faction to the other, but never, ever, admit that oz is not a <modifier> democracy.

oz is nothing like a democracy. just as well, because ozzians are not citizen quality people. they are 'subjects', unable to conceive of self-rule. they are brought up to accept the rule of people who are selected for arrogance, chicanery, and simple power-lust.

oz could have democracy quickly if they wanted it, and by peaceful means. but like the 'horses' they are, they line up for the saddle when their masters whistle.