Oligarchy: Top 1% vs The 99% by Saka Sora Walesa
Let me to ask you this: In your opinion, whom should you not favor when it comes to inequality and injustice in your country—the politicians or the business elites? You might answer the politicians, and that answer is not wrong. However, in a highly capitalist country, that is not the case. It is the business elites who deserve the blame.
Let us understand the difference between these answers. If your correct response is politicians, then you live in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and similar countries—countries I describe as Progressive Socialist States. However, if your correct response is business elites, then you live in Indonesia, the United States, Russia, and countries like them—countries I describe as Capitalist Oligarchies.
So what is the difference? What distinguishes Capitalist Oligarchies from Progressive Socialist States? To understand this difference, we must first understand what an oligarchy is.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, an oligarchy is a small group of people who control a country, organization, or institution. Meanwhile, a capitalist, according to the Oxford Dictionary, refers to a person who invests in trade and industry in order to gain profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
Combine these terms, and you arrive at a phrase that means a small group of people who invest in trade and industry to generate profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism—an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit—and who hold control over a country, organization, or institution.
Yikes—dangerous people
So, what is a Progressive Socialist State?
The word progressive refers to (of a group, person, or idea) supporting or implementing social reform or new liberal ideas; socialist refers to a person who advocates or practices socialism; and state refers to a nation with its own government, occupying a defined territory.
When these words are combined into a single phrase, they refer to a nation with its own government, occupying a defined territory, that supports or implements social reforms or new liberal ideas, and that advocates or practices socialism—a political and economic theory of social organization which holds that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
In a capitalist oligarchy, running for offices of this kind is extremely expensive, and you are typically unable to afford participation. By contrast, in progressive socialist states, running for such offices is affordable, and you, as a member of the middle class, are still able to take part.
Let us take note of this and assume that you are running as a candidate for parliament. In Progressive Socialist States, there are clear regulations that allow you not only to finance your own campaign but also to raise campaign funds independently; there is no need for corporations to fund your campaign.
In Capitalist Oligarchies, however, you are unable to finance your campaign on your own, and fundraising is extremely difficult. As a result, you have no choice but to accept part—or even all—of your campaign funding from large corporations within your region or country.
After months of campaigning, you win in both scenarios and celebrate your victory. You are now ready to represent your people as a member of the people’s parliament. You are sworn in, begin your term of office, and take an oath to represent your constituents and to serve the public interest—not your own personal interests
However, this is where the dilemma emerges: in the scenario of Progressive Socialist States, your campaign funds come directly from the people. They—the public, your superiors in parliament—helped you get there, regardless of how large or small their individual contributions were in bringing you into parliament.
In a Capitalist Oligarchy, however, your campaign funds—the very reason you succeeded in winning a parliamentary seat—come from large and powerful corporations to whom you now owe a debt. After all, they are the reason your campaign was successful in the first place.
As a result, your time as a member of parliament is spent fulfilling the demands of these wealthy donors, while neglecting the needs of your true superiors—the people. It is therefore no surprise that in most countries around the world, politicians do not serve the public; instead, they serve businesses and the oligarchies that sustain them.
Worse still, the oligarchs—the top 1%—enjoy these privileges, while we, the lower 99%, are too busy fighting among ourselves for a chance to reach the top, yet never high enough to enter the upper 1%. This is a struggle of the top 1% versus the 99%.
Saka Sora Walesa adalah seorang pelajar, penulis, dan aktivis muda Indonesia yang memiliki minat kuat pada isu-isu sosial, politik, sastra, dan urusan internasional. Di usia 14 tahun, ia telah menulis opini dan refleksi yang membahas demokrasi, pendidikan, pemerintahan, dan konflik global melalui platform seperti Medium, Instagram, dll.
Ia sangat antusias terhadap Model United Nations (MUN), diplomasi, dan kerja sama global. Melalui konferensi MUN dan diskusi internasional, Walesa secara aktif mengembangkan keterampilannya dalam berbicara di depan umum, negosiasi, kepemimpinan, dan analisis kebijakan sambil mengeksplorasi isu-isu terkait hubungan internasional dan pembangunan berkelanjutan. Ia percaya bahwa kaum muda harus berperan aktif dalam membentuk solusi untuk tantangan nasional dan global.
Walesa juga telah memberikan perspektif kaum muda dalam diskusi terkait ASEAN, di mana ia menekankan pentingnya keadilan, transparansi, persatuan, dan tata kelola yang baik. Dalam sebuah publikasi ASEAN, ia menyatakan kebanggaannya atas keragaman dan kerja sama Asia Tenggara, sekaligus mendorong representasi yang lebih kuat dari kaum muda dan komunitas rentan dalam pembuatan kebijakan.
Comments
Post a Comment