Autocracy, Oligarchy, and Democracy

When I think of the political state of SL, I see a landscape dominated by autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy, three very simple-to-implement forms of government.

1. Autocracy is rule by a single person. Examples are individual land and sim owners who retain ownership of land while enforcing a theme or code of conduct.
   
2. Oligarchy is rule by a few. Linden labs is a form of oligarchy (not a dictatorship which is a type of autocracy), where a few make rules for the many.
   
3. Democracy is rule by the majority. Most loosely collected groups operate as democracies using in-world or forum voting tools to make decisions.
   

In our project, we've laid the foundation for a democratic republic. While it requires more work up front it:

1. provides a well-defined system which allows individuals to share the responsibility of directing the project.
   
2. spreads the decision-making responsibility over as many people as possible to promote fairness.
   
3. allows the project to live on beyond the participation of any single member.
   
4. avoids the problem of "mob rule" found in pure democracies.
   
5. minimizes abuses of power found in autocracies and oligarchies.
   

Do you control, live under, or have heard of any SL autocracies, oligarchies, or democracies? If so, what are they like both good and bad?

What other forms of government have you seen in SL?

What other forms would you like to see in SL?

~Ulrika~

I like the fact that the Lindens govern SL.

Anarchism: no leaders, votes, property rights or enforceable laws whatsoever. Residents developing local, organic, de-centralized solutions to the various problems.

However, since property and Linden oligarchy are deeply embedded in the SL technology, this can't be tried out even on a one-neighbourhood-only basis.

-nim

Actually Ulrika SL is Odie,

AKA a Oligarchic Democracy.
They rule but we still have some input on the changes.

Shadow

Definitely not.

To be a democracy they would have to have a formalized method of taking a popular vote and then be bound to implement its decision. There is no formalized method of taking a popular vote in world and the only voting we can do (the recent web-based feature voting) is not binding. The only tools we have are lobbying, suggesting, hoping, and waiting. This is a clear and simple oligarchy.

If I had to modify oligarchy, I would call SL a corporatist oligarchy. It is rule by the few, where legislative power is given to a corporation that controls the economic, industrial, and professional components of society.

~Ulrika~

I know that this is a simple question but why does it matter? Does anyone "really' care what you call how the Lindens set up SL? It is what it is.

Portuguese government:
The People elect a Government.
The Government drafts up proposals and votes on them.
The President approves or rejects them.

Second Life government:
The Residents draft up proposals and vote on them.
The Benevolent Oligarchy approves or rejects them.
The FIC has ultimate veto power

Hey, nice one Ulrika.

Pretend people already have governments, get them to see that, and then slip in a government on them LOL.

But while they have some features of those things, they don't have the full-fledged version of those things so your neat trick isn't going to fly LOL.

It is what it is! That's what compels me to try to understand it and political science in the virtual world in general. Government in SL is a mountain unclimbed.

One of the things I've come to realize is that autocracies, oligarchies, and democracies are very simple forms of rule, requiring almost no overhead to implement, and are thus dominant in virtual worlds. Because of the transient nature of collectives in a virtual world, it makes setting up governments like democratic republics, which require more work up front, very difficult.

I theorize that once a democratic republic is in place, that it will be stable. However, we won't know that for sure until a few groups have given it a try. We're just about to start the first run at it in a week or so.

~Ulrika~

Great thead Ulrika.

Umber (AKA Midnight city) would have to be a Autocracy under the rule of Mistress Midnight. In some ways it can seem like an informal Oligarchy as Mistress, Torrid Midnight, Launa Fauna, and myself often call the shots, but at the end of the day it's all Mistress.

If LL is considered a govvernment simply because of their control over us then how about every other corporation that has subscribers? How about their employees? How about every employee for that matter? How about out families? Am I a government with my dogs and some goldfish as my subjects? How far does this go?

These all are forms of governments in your eyes I think but IMHO I think LL is not a government at all but simply a company with a service to provide and we are subscribers to that service. I am just unsure of the point in claiming that it is in fact a "government".

LL is a corporation in the real world and a government in the virtual world. They key to understanding the difference is to understand the virtual analogy. In SL we are surrounded by a virtual environment that has elements that are analogous to elements of RL. There exists virtual land, virtual vegetation, virtual homes, virtual money (Linden dollars), virtual people (avatars), and virtual governments (the Lindens for one).

So to your real body and bank account filled with U.S. dollars, LL is a company which provides a service to you. To your virtual body and virtual bank account filled with Linden dollars, the Lindens are a government.

Check out those tracts of open land sometime. It's not a coincidence that they are owned by "Governor Linden". Notice that the Lindens control the supply of their own virtual currency called the "Linden dollar". These and many more are all examples of how the Lindens function as an analogy to a real government in our virtual world.

~Ulrika~

IMO you could just as easily not call LL a government but a for profit corporation who supplies and manages virtual entertainment for a fee to a list of subscribers, which is much more descriptive a label. The “government” label is limiting and not nearly as appropriate. Just food for thought.

Thanks Aimee! That's exactly what I was looking for.

I believe that the Darklife folks were also an autocracy/oligarchy, who became a simple democracy, and then reverted back to an autocracy again due to hostilities created by the democratic process. I believe that having an autocracy eliminated a lot of player friction.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, this is not my field at all, but it looks like it might be yours.

Do you see parallels with RL not just in how things are, but in how things change, and under what pressures?

I have been wondering about the way we here struggle to live with no binding legal contracts between us, no court system to support civil action, almost no police. If an RL society collapsed to this point, wouldn't we see people beginning to yearn for strong autocratic government ? Able to establish and enforce firm rules and control disruptive elements? Maybe even turn towards fascism?

Don't we see this happening now, here? People voting with their feet to move to the new autocratic private sims? Ansheland? Voluntarily putting huge power into the hands of someone they think they can trust.

There must be some great historic precedents.

Gotta be rich pickings for a PhD thesis in this development surely, as it progresses.

This is actually an area where I do have an experience to bring to bear.

And I do believe there is serious potential for autocracy and authoritarianism or worse growing in these types of sims and also the themed "intelligentsia" and "artists' enclave" sims that also tend to develop in this high-tech game

Fascism is lurking around every corner, indeed already functioning in the game in many ways, starting with the practice of organized, collective, shunning on the forums of dissenters.

What I worry about is less the authoritarian, however, than the totalitarian. Sometimes you don't get to pick in life. They can both be pretty bad. But one can be easier to fight.

Under the guise of warning everybody about the coming autocracy, certain people can pick up steam to get others to follow them. They do this by churning up fear and confusion, challenging people's common sense, etc. They do it by making people feel dependent and resenteful rather than empowered.

That's an interesting question. I recommend posting it as a new thread! It could be fun.

In brief, I think what makes SL fundamentally different from RL is that governance is implemented via technology and that the experience is completely voluntary. Occupation becomes either impossible (due to land permissions) or irrelevant (because the occupied can simply teleport away). Because citizens aren't captive, governments at best will compete for citizens and at worst will subversively exploit their citizens. Note that this refers only to opt-in governments encapsulated by the larger Linden federal government.

This is a brilliant observation. I've had concerns about Anshe's project, a for-profit corporation in RL and an autocracy in SL, for quite some time. In many ways the Neualtenburg Projekt, a nonprofit cooperative in RL and a democratic republic in SL, has been created as an alternative to the corporate-autocracy model. Whether or not individuals can recognize, appreciate, and act on this difference is unknown. I hope they can.

I agree. I find virtual government a fascinating process to watch.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, don't words like "autocracy", "autarky", and "oligarchy" carry negative connotations? Haven't they come to mean forms of rule that are generally undesirable in the modern world?

If I owned an island sim, and people lived there under my (benign) rules (), and called it "Seth's Autarky", I think I'd be concerned.

So, with great respect for you, can I ask this: Are you using these words and concepts in a negative sense, or are you trying to reestablish a more neutral meaning for them in the context of SL - or, are you trying to define "new" meanings for the concepts in the SL context?

It goes back to the question of "stretching" concepts to fit SL, I guess; does "oligarchy" in SL mean the same thing that it means in RL.

Ulrika, don't words like "autocracy", "anarchy", and "oligarchy" carry negative connotations? Haven't they come to mean forms of rule that are generally undesirable in the modern world?

If I owned an island sim, and people lived there under my (benign) rules (), and called it "Seth's Autocracy", I think I'd be concerned.

So, with great respect for you, can I ask this: Are you using these words and concepts in a negative sense, or are you trying to reestablish a more neutral meaning for them in the context of SL - or, are you trying to define "new" meanings for the concepts in the SL context?

It goes back to the question of "stretching" concepts to fit SL, I guess; does "oligarchy" in SL mean the same thing that it means in RL?

Scientifically speaking, those words are used to uniquely and concisely describe different forms of government. I use them without any implied stigma.

I do think that we've been trained casually in our society to associate a stigma with those forms of rule though. I believe citizens of all countries are subject to subtle propaganda meant to reinforce the notion that their form of government is superior relative to others. For instance, democracy is always presented with a positive connotation, which is why I love reminding folks that pure democracy is in fact a quite undesirable state of majority (mob) rule.

In reality, you can see that living under an oligarchy isn't really that terrible. The average citizen might grow frustrated with inconsistent punishment, no avenue for appeal, and a lack of control over the decision-making process. Yet all in all it's not so bad. Additionally, autocracies, oligarchies, and democracies are very simple to implement -- quite appropriate for a fledgling virtual world in my opinion.

(No need to be so nice. I think Jesse's gone.)

I'm definitely using them without any positive or negative connotation. It is what it is.

Yes. Exactly the same thing.

Recently you were the recipient of Linden forum justice (I was too last week, warning and all). Think about how inconsistently punishment is handed out, our inability to appeal or receive feedback, and the lack of formal channels to change the system. It's screaming oligarchy to me.

~Ulrika~

This is exactly what happened in Spain thirty years ago and is happening again today, with the revival or restoration of virtually all of the Eastern European and Balkan monarchies in one form or another. In a period of political chaos, people will always turn to a leader whom they perceive of as a strong and decisive ruler. Even in the Russian Federation, I would not be at all surprised to see a new and autocratic Tsar some day - though I strongly doubt it would be any of the cursed Romanovs.