Republic, Democracy, or Plutocracy?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/24/2008 03:52:14 PM · #1

I am sure many still get confused about the form of government we have in the U.S. Some would argue it is a republic, others may say it is primarily a democracy.. yet another group may say it is a hybrid of the two, fueled by capitalism.

Now in light of these notions, and knowing these facts from this academic research article:

"As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)."

and from the same source:

"First, wealth can be seen as a "resource" that is very useful in exercising power. That's obvious when we think of donations to political parties, payments to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy. Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries. Second, certain kinds of wealth, such as stock ownership, can be used to control corporations, which of course have a major impact on how the society functions. Table 5 shows what the distribution of stock ownership looks like."

Would you now say that U.S. is a borderline Plutocratic state?

Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to President Richard Nixon, in fact argued that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."

Message edited by author 2008-10-24 15:57:18.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

10/24/2008 04:01:59 PM · #2

None of the above, it's more of an oligarchy.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/24/2008 04:12:59 PM · #3

Although I, by no means, feel that there isn't truth to the fact a small % of the population owns a large % of the wealth, I've always wondered how much of this wealth is real? What amount of that wealth is funded by debt and what amount is the paper value of assets such as stock? Much of that wealth is illusory. Certainly all the debt wealth is, but if you own 50% of a 500 billion dollar company, you can't simply sell that stock for 250 billion. Your selling is going to affect the price via supply and demand and you are going to get less than 250 billion for it.

Just a question I've always wondered. How many trillion dollars have been wiped out of the market in the last month and would that actually alter those numbers quoted above since the top 20% is going to own far more stock than the bottom 80%?

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

10/24/2008 04:25:36 PM · #4

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wealth is wealth as far as I'm concerned. Just because it's not cash in a bank doesn't mean it's not wealth. Regardless of how it is "owned", the fact is that the control of that wealth and it's consequent benefits are controlled by a very small percentage of the population. That 50% of a $500 billion dollar company may have dropped precipitously over the past weeks, but it's still 50% of that company.

A more important question would be: What percentage of those 20% are worried about being able to feed their kids, pay the rent/mortgage or about a serious illness destroying their family financially. I'll wager that number approaches zero or is zero.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/25/2008 12:15:53 AM · #5

Interesting points. One of the reasons I started this thread was my extreme curiosity to find out how far people can go over and above their long held beliefs about the U.S. political system.. and whether they consider the ever changing dynamics of its representational democracy.

If one forgets about everything they ever learnt about the nation's politics, and consider just the presented facts (from the first post), one is bound to incline towards the suggestion that U.S. may in fact be fast moving towards becoming a Plutocratic state. Or not?

We will hopefully find out in a few more posts:-)

ETA: Spell check.

Message edited by author 2008-10-25 00:21:42.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/25/2008 01:16:24 AM · #6

Originally posted by Prash:

U.S. may in fact be fast moving towards becoming a Plutocratic state. Or not?

The question of movement is the most interesting point of this argument IMHO. While the upper five percent of this country is indeed gathering a higher percentage of the wealth in the last twenty years, isn't this a return to the status quo ante?

From colonial days through the start of the twentieth century, the working man has been seen as a tool by those who had the wealth to employ that tool. With the threat of Socialism, the rise of the trade unions, the introduction of graduated income tax, and the outbreak of the second world war, there was a radical shift in the notion of the value of labor. Isn't the rise of the middle class and the notion of asking more of the wealthy than the poor a short blip in our nations history? If the poor keep getting poorer and the rich keep getting richer we will be returning to what we were before, not into some radical new territory.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

10/25/2008 01:32:52 AM · #7

Originally posted by Prash:

I still say it's oligarchy. Rule by the elite. The names may change on the Oval Office, but the "powers behind the throne" are all the same.

FireBird

10/25/2008 01:40:56 AM · #8

Originally posted by Prash:

that U.S. may in fact be fast moving towards becoming a Plutocratic state. Or not?

Pluto isn't considered a planet any more. ;P

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

10/25/2008 01:46:40 AM · #9

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Prash:
Interesting points. One of the reasons I started this thread was my extreme curiosity to find out how far people can go over and above their long held beliefs about the U.S. political system.. and whether they consider the ever changing dynamics of its representational democracy.

If one forgets about everything they ever learnt about the nation's politics, and consider just the presented facts (from the first post), one is bound to incline towards the suggestion that U.S. may in fact be fast moving towards becoming a Plutocratic state. Or not?

We will hopefully find out in a few more posts:-)

ETA: Spell check.

I still say it's oligarchy. Rule by the elite. The names may change on the Oval Office, but the "powers behind the throne" are all the same.

Hmmm.

So lets revisit the definitions of Oligarchy and Plutocracy (source: wikipedia):

"Oligarchy is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military powers or occult spiritual hegemony. Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children were heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy.

Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.

Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group.

A number of critics argue that the United States political system is, itself, an oligarchic structure. Third party candidates stand little chance of election to national office, due to the enormous monetary capital needed to purchase advertising time and to make other key connections in order to gain sufficient attention from the electorate."

Now from what all I can gather from these sources, theres isnt much different between Oligarchy and Plutocracy.. except that in Oligarchy the privilege available to the 'real' rulers may not always be just the wealth.. but other things like family heritage, or superior socio-economic status.

Still a thin line between a plutocratic and an oligarchic state. If we look at documented examples,

Oligarchy: Sparta, Russia, South Africa.
Plutocracy: Ancient Greece, and the civilization of Carthage.

So looking at these examples, there are more recent proofs of states being practically Oligarchic rather than Plutocratic. So we may in fact be racing to become an Oligarchic state then eh? ;-)

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/25/2008 11:25:10 AM · #10

In practical, real-world terms, both Oligarchy and Plutocracy involve power gained through wealth. The term "plutocrat" is much more familiar in an American context, as it's not that long ago that the likes of the robber barons (Rockefellers, Carnegies, et al, were seen as usurping the political power from the hands of the more established landed gentry, and "plutocrat" was the (perjorative) term used to describe these men.

What's interesting here is that it's not necessarily the very rich that do the actual "public ruling", but instead this falls to puppets beholden to them. Make no mistake, at this point in time the real power in America is in the hands of the very wealthy, regardless of the economic status of whomever actually occupies the White House and the Congress...

Many would argue that this is as it should be, that the people who control the economic health of a nation deserve, and are better suited to wield, a bigger stake in its government. I'm pretty sure the latest economic downturns give the lie to that particular fallacy.

R