Talk:Plutocracy

Add United States of America to the list of Plutocratic regimes?

I think that if one looks into the other definitions and examples of a Plutocracy found in this article, the United States of America clearly meats the requirements of a Plutocracy.

-Anonymous

POV neutrality

The first paragraph of this article ends with "The United Kingodom could be seen as a plutocracy." Other than the obvious misspelling of kingdom, I would think that several countries could be seen as a plutocracy, especially when considering oligarchies. I believe the whole sentence should be removed.

-ABell

What's with the "I postulate..." in the last paragraph? Can someone with a full account look into this? I just happenned to be hopping by and noticed that, which throws the whole article into a neutrality type question.

-JHolmes

I also found that the last section, "Plutocracy-Forms of Control", to be of questionable neutrality. The rest of the article seemed fine to me.

-PAllec

@PAllex: Can you please site the particular sentence you are referring to and explain why? Dwdallam (talk)

Someone needs to flag this for POV because of that whole capitalism bashing at the end. Either that or make it a separate section that clearly states it is opinion.

-CCameron

The last few paragraphs under "Forms of Control" sound like a statement of opinion, not an encyclopedia entry. The last paragraph even begins with "I postulate..." . Wikipedia is not a place to postulate. Even though I agree with almost all this writer's statements, they don't belong on this page. I'll try to eliminate the political punditry and reword it to something more neutral.

Noclevername 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm politically conservative, and I don't see how the "Forms of Control" section is anti-capitalist. All it's saying is that in a capitalistic system most of the control of the economy is in the hands of those with the most money, and in a free-market system of election spending there is a lot of money influence in how elections go. You can be extremely pro-capitalist and admit that. I do think the use of "undue" in the previous section counted as POV, but I just changed that. As far as I'm concerned, this is a fairly neutral article. There are some strange uses of comments in the "Forms of Control" section, and it needs some consistency as to whether 'plutocracy' should be capitalized, but those aren't really POV issues but more just a need for cleaning up the style of the article. Parableman 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link POV?

I'm a new editor so I was wondering if the "external link" is a valid source? i.e http://progressiveliving.org/plutocracy_defined.htm I would be tempted to remove the "External Links" section, if there are no objections? And the whole article needs references. I'd be interested in finding some but I'd like some suggestions first. --AWZ (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a also new editor so I was wondering if my domain http://www.plutocracycaust.com is valid enough to get into the "external link" section to let people get the relation to other disasters shown in massmedia. --User talk:Phsycho (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While there is an inherent bias in any sources cited for this article (since almost no sources exist in which 'plutocracy' is not used pejoratively), it is still possible to cite sources that consider the subject academically. I removed both the previous links, replaced them with another link, and added a 'Further reading' section, which later I will add to. 97.73.64.147 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For academic levels there's a good read at http://www.plutocracycaust.com/die_physiker.html.

I really wonder for what reason the only external link was removed? Shall i try to gather some reviews of that site before i consider a link in wikipedia? 80.219.165.92 (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph -- usage

The reference to an interview with Kevin Phillips is a good example of a modern pejorative usage. It seems a bit "lonely" as a sentence standing by itself. Not sure, if it's really a problem. --AWZ (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple voting

"For instance, a factory owner could have 2000 votes, while a worker would only have one. " This is absolute nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.227.203 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that that entire paragrahp makes reference to only two sources, one of which is inactive, and the other refers to Swedish political history, which does not mention the vote disparity, and does not discuss the line about voting in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.49.200 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Positive influence of bribes!?!?!

What exactly does this sentence mean? "Positive influence [of plutocrats] includes campaign contributions and bribes;" I don't think most people would consider bribes a positive influence on government.

What is Plutocracy?

Outside of an ideological/utopian fantasy has there or could be a government that is not a plutocracy? -duke

(What good is a plutocracy? A goverment ran by wealth, Ok, so the leaders have wealth... Does that mean they are capable of being leaders? Whee! I win the lottery! I must be capable of running an entire country now! Can a Plutocracy even successfully exist? Does anyone have anything to say to this? -Anonymous)

can it exist? we're living in one! In JERSEY Channel Islands

I added -anonymous to your comment, because you didn't add a signature. I see what you're saying, the initial line is not very informative. "A plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth)." I did a quick reference on answers.com for the American Heritage definition:

plu·toc·ra·cy (plū-tŏk'rə-sē) n., pl. -cies. 1. Government by the wealthy. 2. A wealthy class that controls a government. 3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

I feel that the opening sentence should be changed to read "A plutocracy is a government system ruled and influenced by the wealthy (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth)." or something to that effect. Thoughts?

--BriskWiki 07:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All governments that have every existed, until the 20th Century, have been plutocracies.

Until the 20th century? Of course we virtually all live in a plutocracy, to a greater or lesser extent. This has always been the case, certainly so since the invention of money made accumulation of wealth relatively easier for those in a position to accumulate wealth. To think otherwise would be naive.

--"All" governments may have displayed plutocracy, it may be an inherent temptation, but I argue that that's exactly why we need a better system put in place that stems the tide of that predispositon. Example: all individuals are capable of lying, cheating and stealing, so we have social rules and laws to curb those possibilities-- So we should with organized bad behavior, the kind in governments: we should set up sound systems to make plutocratic behavior illegal and/or socially unacceptable. It's as simple as that. --Also-- Something in the article I didn't like, but maybe it's that I'm not understanding it. The author states that there's two "unrelated" uses of the term plutocracy. He/she says, basically, that one is refers to the older usage when describing governments, and the other to a contemporary critism of government. My question is this--what exactly is "unrelated" about those two uses, besides the obvious fact that one is history and one is the present? To me, that's like saying my pet here would be called a dog, that's what it's been called historically, but because I'm in the here and now and this dog is alive now, not a word in a book writing about dogs that have gone before, my pet must be completely "unrelated" to "dogs" of the past and I should call him a "frig" instead!! I say you call it what it is!! My dog is a dog, and a plutocracy is a plutocracy, whether it's historic or in the here and now! I think the author of the "plutocracy" page demonstrates the common tendency lately of disregarding history when analyzing present cicumstances, and to me, that's irresponsible, fool-hardy and dangerous. History is important and relevent EXACTLY for the purposes of applying it's lessons to the present, otherwise we'd be in an endless circle, with no progress in sight (I do believe that we are in a spiral, which is kind of like a circle, but that's a different story!) Anyway, maybe I read in wrong, I don't know. What do you guys think?

What is the origin of the word?

What is the origin of the word?--Nixer 16:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Look on the page. 74.38.35.171 03:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Carthage anyone?

Isn't Carthage run by a senate of rich merchants? Tourskin (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Modern political section

It appears that the "Modern political" section not only has a few weasel words, but also trails off topic. It should be looked at further and cleaned up a bit from someone with a little better understanding of the topic. Hackajar (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I enjoy eggs (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Only a few weasel words? I don't see how a comment by a political hack should be used to support use of the term, and it strays quite a bit into the subject of Clean Elections (which is a little more balanced). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Inherent bias

I am a political science student and I think this article is inherently bias and from a neo-realist ideological perspective.(thats the conservative right wing traditional perspective of international politics) Actually its sort of obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.174.193 (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As total newb to the site and this whole subject, I find the following argument confusing: Critics of so-called clean elections point out that having the government decide which candidates would receive tax dollars and therefore be allowed to run would create an effective dictatorship where (instead of private organizations) the government decides who the people can vote for. I fail to see the difference between the dictatorship run by organizations and one run by a government run by organizations. Is it just me, or could the part be worded more proficiently? Bulletprewph (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative connotation

The fact corporations have an economical and social impact by trying to influence (bribe) the (political) elite or large groups of populations, through manipulation, is a fact adhered to by many (academic) people. There are historical precedents which could fuel the aforementioned point if one considers the action class suits directed at multinationals and/or their CEO's and/or shareholders/owners.

If one considers a tyrany to be an example of plutocracy (And nepotism) in its extreme form, one could consider Sadam Hussein (Irak), Ferdinand Marcos (Philipines) or Idi Amin Dada (Uganda) as recent, documented, examples.

The point of contention seems to be whether political, judicial and sociological systems have objective criteria defining actions as being "fundamentaly plutocratic" or not. Although some actions by individuals or corporations can be classified as morally objectionable due to their (negative, deconstructive) impact on the social fabric of a certain society, this is largely a question of historical and cultural point of view. Morality as such is often taken as basis for legal or political argument, but this is not a strictly defined matter and only held as such through consensus or historical fact. From that point of view the pejorative connotation attached to "plutocratic" is subject to debate.

If one considers the convictions of (wealthy) people and companies for bribery or otherwise exerted (negative) influence on a society, there is some basis to define "plutocracy" as detrimental for social fabric on a general level and individuals in specific cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VincentJS (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why NOT to merge Corporatocary and plutocracy

plutocracy reffers to rule by the rich. These 'rich' could coalesce around rigid social groups, such as the indian/hidu caste system, the roman system, etc. Or they could coalesce around military assocaition, or reace, religion, creed, etc. Corporatcoracy is certainly a type of plutocracy, but it is a much narrower concept: (indirect) rule by corporations, i.e. rich coalescing around economic entities, as opposed to social, political, or other groups and entities.

corporatocracy is a subset of plutocracy, and deserves, especially given its contemporary nature, it's own article.

Bity (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You admit that it is a subset of plutocracy, and the current state of the article is a single sentence of information. The article itself admits that the term is a neologism. To me, these are all arguments in favor of merging. If, after such a merge, the section on corporatocracy expands with relavent and verifiable content, it can always be split off again at that point. For now, I don't see much reason to believe it will expand very much. -Verdatum (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the move. Corporatocary is very distinct from Plutocracy. Would all Corporatocaries be plutocracies? I don't think that is necessarily true. Gavin (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavin is correct. Corporatocracy is NOT a subset of plutocracy -- corporatocracy and plutocracy are intersecting sets. Each requires its own entry. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem

This in the lead is wrong. "In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low." An obvious possible system that would be plutocratic but not discribed by the above, would be a system where the rich could give all or most of their wealth to the state in exchange for a seat in the ruling counsel.70.150.94.194 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

George Soros

This isn't even a minor footnote. He gave money to a group that calls George W. Bush bad names. Who cares. This has no influence on government policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

United States?

There is no reference and no reason to say that people argue that the United States of America is a plutocracy. I guess I'll remove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The US is a democracy, and obviously not a plutocracy, not very obvious since the bail outs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.172.128 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article does not cite Michael Moore and say "The US is a plutocracy", which would obviously be against Wikipedia policy. Instead, the article cites a reliable secondary source, the Orlando Sentinel, in saying that one of his films describes evidence of plutocracy in the US. That's a fact, and that's how Wikipedia works. AV3000 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The citigroup memo discusses a stock plan, not politics. Read page seven, paragraph 3. I believe you are making the mistake of thinking the fact that an Orlando sentinel movie review references a michael moore movie, causes what the film said to be accurate. This is clearly WP:UNDUE and really speculation based on a poorly interepted citigroup stock investment plan. If the US is truly moving towards an plutocracy, then you should be able to find more sources. WWJBD456 (talk) 2049, 8 June 2010

The United States is a Republic; a so-called representative democracy. I'm currently doing research that proposes Republics can easily evolve into a Plutocracy. Augustun84 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So today, December 04, 2010, when the United States Senate votes on tax cuts for 99% of us or tax cuts for the top 1%, will we finally be able to end the silly debate, which to so many of us is obvious. Of course the United States is a Plutocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Still obviously wrong, and requires a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not right but not so obviously wrong either. Augustun84 has the right idea when he says that the United States is a Representative democracy that may be evolving into a Plutocracy. In the US the wealthy and/or corporations are not in charge in the political sense but are using the mechanisms of Capitalism to manage political outcomes. This does not make it a Plutocracy but people are justified in drawing a parallel. Not sure how to weave this into the article without sounding biased. User:Dick P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.128.75 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable, non-political source which says that, it might be added. "Weave"ing it into the article is WP:OR or WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

can you give me a reliable, non-political source which says that earth is round? i think its just a theory, dont point me to original research :), gravity is just a theory too, not sure what you are smoking, but do you mind sharing it with me?

Superclass

I can see, loosely, how the first definition of superclass might be relevant, although we don't have any sources which suggest that the ruling class are actually rich. The list and the book are clearly not relevant to this article, except in that they represent examples of the of that first definition of superclass. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Superclass are Transnational capitalist class Billionaires, not necessarily "ruling class" as in politicians, but "Super" because they are seen as above the the "ruling class". Transnational Capitalists do not necessarily need or even desire Democracy. See State Capitalism. 99.54.141.3 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If that were a used definition, if they were powerful because they were rich,and if we were to create an article on that subject, it would be relevant to this article. None of the present disambiguations at superclass fit your definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your's is one voice, but is it in the wilderness? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Corporate welfare to compensate for the Economic efficiency of State Capitalism, from Fascist Italy and fruition in examples such as the PRC? 99.155.147.79 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean anything to anyone else. It doesn't mean anything to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini admired by Fred C. Koch ... Post-Left–right politics, new Extremism versus new Centrism (Paul Collier) of Civilization Ecosystem Services support. 99.54.137.200 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a comparison between Platonic idealism and Platonic realism? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like Platonic epistemology Truthiness. 99.29.187.34 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Emotions? 99.190.90.68 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking to yourself, again? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Plutarchy

I double bracketed plutarchy in the intro, and then, the next morning, clicked it and found a loop closed by a redirect. I have not encountered plutarchy until now, and always assumed that aristocracy and oligarchy are synonymous--not so. In fact, oligarchs tend to be middle-class and can be lower-class; many have emerged from poverty.

I now think the distinction is crucial to understanding society, and that the only context to discuss it is in the little-known category of plutarchy. So, I am suggesting that a development page be built on an other WM project site (as it may include original research), and that the plutarchy redirect be replaced with a plutarchy stub so that relationship between oligarchy and aristocracy can be described in its proper context.--John Bessa (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Plutarchy thoughts: Aristocracy describes families that have done so well that they can distinguish themselves as a distinct culture from the base. Oligarchy is a thought process (called, or misnamed, philosophy) that benefits aristocracy. In the beginning... there was Athens and Sparta, Athens being democratic and Sparta being aristocratic. Some Athenians who created a school called the Lyceum, supported the Sparta, and developed a planning guide for such structures that historians tell us is the basis of Western Civilization. (Asian civilization developed with the help of similar guides that were also categorized as philosophy.)

The philosophic struggle between Athens and Sparta, or between democracy and oligarchy, centered on the extravert/introvert pole found in the relatively recent Myers-Briggs personality test. The oligarchs won the war of words to establish the Western Civilization that has continually sided with aristocrats as property holders and dominant politicians, such as with the Scottish Clearances and the Bush family in the US. They initiated the modernism that continued through the Roman Church to the atheistic Age of Reason. Despite this, democracy survives as the political system of the vast majority of nations, and was relatively recently used by aristocrats in their defenses against communism: we are the leaders of the "free world" against the purest of oligarchs, the Soviets whose "apparatus" had cleansed its oligarchy of the inefficient aristocrats (aristocrats should take note).

Extravert/introvert is psychological, and if this is the philosophical divider, than oligarchs are psychologically distinct. If we follow this dichotomy, we find ourselves in the area of personality traits and disorders. Some of these traits/disorders describe the introversion argued by many early philosophers, and extraversion describes behaviors of many of the wealthy and powerful, with average people being presumably normal.

This line of thought requires entrenchment in the roots of Western Civilization; test comparisons with other civilizations, such as Asian, can confirm if the process is phenomena, natural or counter-evolutionary.--John Bessa (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Should "As a propaganda term" be discussed before deleted in whole?

Should "As a propaganda term" be discussed before deleted in whole?

As a propaganda term

In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, western democratic states were constantly referred to as "plutocracies", with the underlying assumption being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them in ransom. "Plutocracy" replaced "democracy" and "capitalism" as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War. For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews".

99.181.155.158 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same as the "Modern politics" section; it is propaganda, rather than even potentially descriptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that section a simple logical analysis of how our plutocracy works? The conclusion that money controls our government is self evident. The paragraph simply explains how that can be the case in what was established to be a government by, of, and for the people rather than a plutocracy. How is that propaganda? Carl Hitchon (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Citigroup Analyst describes US and UK as Plutonomy

• Can a Movement Save the American Dream? thenation.com
• Plutonomy:Bringing Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances citigroup.87.164.124.151 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(Redirected from Plutonomy)!?

quote
Plutocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Plutonomy)
end quote

• why? there's no mention of "Plutonomy" in the article anywhere! --Treekids (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• there appears to be a distinction: salon.com --Treekids (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)