→Russia: not a legitimate dispute and not discussed on talk |
Anarcho-statist (talk | contribs) added content Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
(92 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2013}} |
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2013}} |
||
{{Distinguish2|[[Plutonomy]]}} |
|||
{{Basic Forms of government}} |
{{Basic Forms of government}} |
||
'''Plutocracy''' ({{etymology|el|''[[:wikt:πλοῦτος|πλοῦτος]]'', ploutos|wealth||''[[:wikt:κράτος|κράτος]]'', kratos|power, dominion, rule}}) or '''plutarchy''', defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term |
'''Plutocracy''' ({{etymology|el|''[[:wikt:πλοῦτος|πλοῦτος]]'', ploutos|wealth||''[[:wikt:κράτος|κράτος]]'', kratos|power, dominion, rule}}) or '''plutarchy''', defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term was in 1652.<ref>{{cite web|title=Plutocracy|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocracy|publisher=Merriam Webster|accessdate=13 October 2012}}</ref> Unlike systems such as [[democracy]], [[capitalism]], [[socialism]] or [[anarchism]], plutocracy is not rooted in an established [[political philosophy]]. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a [[pejorative]] sense.<ref>"The study of attitudes is reasonably easy [...] it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population - the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale - they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They're effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it's plutocracy." Extract from [http://www.alternet.org/print/visions/chomsky-us-poses-number-threats-future-humanity-our-youll-never-hear-about-it-our-free-press the transcript of a speech] delivered by Noam Chomsky in Bonn, Germany, at DW Global Media Forum, 15 August 2013.</ref> |
||
==Usage== |
==Usage== |
||
The term |
The term ''plutocracy'' is generally used as a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition.<ref>{{cite book|last=Fiske|first=Edward B.|title=Fiske 250 words every high school freshman needs to know|year=2009|publisher=Sourcebooks|location=Naperville, Ill.|isbn=1402218400|pages=250|author2=Mallison, Jane |author3=Hatcher, David }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Coates|first=ed. by Colin M.|title=Majesty in Canada: essays on the role of royalty|year=2006|publisher=Dundurn|location=Toronto|isbn=1550025864|pages=119}}</ref> Throughout history, political thinkers such as [[Winston Churchill]], 19th-century French [[sociologist]] and [[historian]] [[Alexis de Tocqueville]], 19th-century Spanish [[monarchist]] [[Juan Donoso Cortés]] and today [[Noam Chomsky]] have condemned plutocrats for ignoring their [[Social responsibility|social responsibilities]], using their power to serve their own purposes and thereby increasing poverty and nurturing [[class conflict]], corrupting societies with [[greed]] and [[hedonism]].<ref>{{cite book|first=Peter Viereck; with a new preface by the|title=Conservative thinkers: from John Adams to Winston Churchill|year=2006|publisher=Transaction Publishers|location=New Brunswick, New Jersey|isbn=1412805260|pages=19–68}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Toupin|first=Alexis de Tocqueville; edited by Roger Boesche; translated by James|title=Selected letters on politics and society|year=1985|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley|isbn=0520057511|pages=197–198|author2=Boesche, Roger }}</ref> |
||
===Examples=== |
===Examples=== |
||
Examples of plutocracies include the [[Roman Empire]], some [[city-state]]s in [[Ancient Greece]], the civilization of [[Carthage]], the [[Italian city-states]]/[[merchant republic]]s of [[Republic of Venice|Venice]], [[Republic of Florence|Florence]], [[Republic of Genoa|Genoa]], and pre-World War II [[Empire of Japan]] (the ''[[zaibatsu]]'').{{cn|date=May 2014}} |
|||
Examples of plutocracies include the [[Roman Empire]], some [[city-state]]s in [[Ancient Greece]], the civilization of [[Carthage]], the [[Italian city-states]]/[[merchant republic]]s of [[Republic of Venice|Venice]], [[Republic of Florence|Florence]], [[Republic of Genoa|Genoa]], pre-World War II [[Empire of Japan]], [[zaibatsu]], and the [[United States]]<ref>{{cite news|last=Lind|first=Michael|title=T O-Word|url=http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/bflr.2009.18.46?journalCode=bflr#.U2EZRflSbwx|accessdate=30 April 2014|newspaper=The Baffler|date=Dec 2009}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Barker|first=Derek|title=Oligarchy or Elite Democracy? Aristotle and Modern Representative Government|journal=New Political Science|date=2013|volume=35|issue=4|page=547-566|doi=10.1080/07393148.2013.848701|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07393148.2013.848701#.U2EZt_lSbwx|accessdate=30 April 2014}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Nichol|first=Gene|title=Citizens United and the Roberts Court's War on Democracy|journal=Georgia State University Law Review|date=3/13/2012|volume=27|issue=4|page=1007-1018|url=http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol27/iss4/19|accessdate=30 April 2014}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|last=Muller, A., Kinezuka, A., and Kerssen, T|title=The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Threat to Democracy and Food Sovereignty|url=http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Institute-for-Food-and-Development-Policy-The-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-A-Threat-to-Democracy-and-Food-Sovereignty.pdf|accessdate=30 April 2014|newspaper=Food First Backgrounder|date=Summer 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Etzioni|first=Amitai|title=Political Corruption in the United States: A Design Draft|journal=Political Science & Politics|date=Jan 2014|volume=47|issue=1|page=141-144|doi=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513001492|url=http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPSC%2FPSC47_01%2FS1049096513001492a.pdf&code=ba2e895791f0f037b810d4d41529542f|accessdate=30 April 2014}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Winters|first=Jeffrey|title=Oligarchy|journal=Perspectives on Politics|date=March 2012|volume=10|issue=1|page=137-139|doi=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004294|url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8502723|accessdate=30 April 2014}}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal|last=Westbrook|first=David|title= If Not a Commercial Republic - Political Economy in the United States after Citizens United|journal=Lousiville Law Review|date=2011|volume=50|issue=1|page=35-86|url=http://www.louisvillelawreview.org/sites/louisvillelawreview.org/files/pdfs/printcontent/50/1/Westbrook.pdf|accessdate=30 April 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title=Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0|accessdate=30 April 2014|newspaper=New York Times|date=Jan 21, 2010}}</ref> . |
|||
One modern |
One modern, formal example of what some critics have described as a plutocracy is the [[City of London]].<ref name=Guardian1>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval ''The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest''], [[The Guardian]], retrieved 01/11/2011</ref> The City ''(not the whole of modern [[London]] but the area of the ancient city, about 1 sq mile or 2.5 km<sup>2</sup>, which now mainly comprises the financial district)'' has a unique electoral system for its local administration. More than two-thirds of voters are not residents, but rather representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City, with votes distributed according to their numbers of employees. The principal justification for this arrangement is that most of the services provided by the Corporation are used by the businesses in the City. In fact about 450,000 non-residents constitute the city's day-time population, far outnumbering the City's 7,000 residents.<ref name=tribune>{{cite news|url=http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2009/02/labour-runs-in-city-of-london-poll-against-'get-rich'-bankers/|title=Labour runs in City of London poll against ‘get-rich’ bankers|date=12 February 2009|author=René Lavanchy|publisher=[[Tribune (magazine)|Tribune]]|accessdate=14 February 2009}}{{deadlink|date=May 2014}}</ref> |
||
Another contemporary example involves the municipalities of [[Lake Buena Vista]] and [[Bay Lake, Florida]]. Both are owned and governed by [[The Walt Disney Company]], per state statutes. The only landowners are fully owned subsidiaries of Disney, and right-of-way for state and county roads, and the only residents are Disney employees.{{citation needed|date=October 2012}} |
|||
===Modern politics=== |
===Modern politics=== |
||
{{See also|Upper class}} |
{{See also|Upper class}} |
||
{{Unreferenced|section|date=May 2014}} |
|||
Historically, wealthy individuals and organizations have exerted influence over the political arena. In the modern era, many democratic republics permit fundraising for politicians who frequently rely on such income for advertising their candidacy to the voting public. |
Historically, wealthy individuals and organizations have exerted influence over the political arena. In the modern era, many democratic republics permit fundraising for politicians who frequently rely on such income for advertising their candidacy to the voting public. |
||
Whether through individuals, [[corporations]] or [[advocacy groups]], such donations are often believed to engender a [[cronyist]] or [[patronage system]] |
Whether through individuals, [[corporations]] or [[advocacy groups]], such donations are often believed to engender a [[cronyist]] or [[patronage system]] by which major contributors are rewarded on a ''[[quid pro quo]]'' basis. While campaign donations need not directly affect the legislative decisions of elected representatives, the natural expectation of donors is that their needs will be served by the person to whom they donated. If not, it is in their self-interest to fund a different candidate or political organization. |
||
While ''quid pro quo'' agreements are generally illegal in most democracies, they are difficult to prove, short of a well-documented paper trail. A core basis of democracy, being a politician's ability to freely advocate policies which benefit his or her constituents, also makes it difficult to prove that doing so might be a crime. Even the granting of appointed positions to a well-documented contributor may not |
While ''quid pro quo'' agreements are generally illegal in most democracies, they are difficult to prove, short of a well-documented paper trail. A core basis of democracy, being a politician's ability to freely advocate policies which benefit his or her constituents, also makes it difficult to prove that doing so might be a crime. Even the granting of appointed positions to a well-documented contributor may not transgress the law, particularly if the appointee appears to be suitably qualified for the post. Some systems even specifically provide for such [[patronage]]. |
||
Quite often, wealthy individuals either finance their own political campaigns (often because of campaign finance regulations) or leverage their affiliations with other wealthy persons and organizations to do so on their behalf. In the United States, {{as of|2011|11|lc=y}}, 250 members of Congress both Democratic and Republican are millionaires, with 57 belonging to the top 1% of American wealthy<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-11-15/congress-wealthy-1/51216626/1</ref> |
|||
===United States=== |
===United States=== |
||
⚫ | |||
[[Image:Senate Income Votes.SVG|thumb|350px|A study by [[Larry Bartels]] found that Senate votes in 1989-1994 were more responsive to the opinions of high-income groups and were less and even negatively responsive to the opinions of middle and lower-class groups.<ref>Based on [[Larry Bartels|Larry Bartels's]] study ''[http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf Economic Inequality and Political Representation]'', Table 1: Differential Responsiveness of Senators to Constituency Opinion.</ref>]] |
|||
⚫ | |||
[[Image:US Senators' Responsiveness to Income Groups (107th-111th Congresses).png|thumb|350px|A study by Thomas Hayes attempted to replicate Bartels' findings for the period of 2001-2010, but found a much stronger result.<ref>{{cite paper |ssrn=1900856 |title=Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate |first=Thomas J. |last=Hayes |year=2011 |work=APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper }}</ref>]] |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{over-quotation|section|reason=Not all the quotes are relevant, except in the minds of the authors, who may not be experts. Those which ''are'' relevant should be summarized.|date=April 2014}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
Some |
Some modern historians, politicians and economists state that the United States was effectively plutocratic for at least part of the ''[[Gilded Age]]'' and ''[[Progressive Era]]'' periods between the end of the [[Civil War (United States)|Civil War]] until the beginning of the [[Great Depression]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Pettigrew|first=Richard Franklin|title=Triumphant Plutocracy: The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920|year=2010|publisher=Nabu Press|isbn=1146542747}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Calvin Reed|first=John|title=The New Plutocracy|year=1903|publisher=Kessinger Publishing, LLC (2010 reprint)|isbn=1120909155}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last= Brinkmeyer|first=Robert H.|title=The fourth ghost: white Southern writers and European fascism, 1930-1950|year=2009|publisher=Louisiana State University Press|location=Baton Rouge|isbn=0807133833|pages=331}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Allitt|first=Patrick|title=The conservatives: ideas and personalities throughout American history|year=2009|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven|isbn=0300118945|pages=143}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Ryan|first=foreword by Vincent P. De Santis; edited by Leonard Schlup, James G.|title=Historical dictionary of the Gilded Age|year=2003|publisher=M.E. Sharpe|location=Armonk, N.Y.|isbn=0765603314|pages=145}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Peter Viereck; with a new preface by the|title=Conservative thinkers: from John Adams to Winston Churchill|year=2006|publisher=Transaction Publishers|location=New Brunswick, New Jersey|isbn=1412805260|pages=103}}</ref> President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] became known as the "trust-buster" for his aggressive use of [[United States antitrust law]], through which he managed to break up such major combinations as [[Northern Securities Company|the largest railroad]] and [[Standard Oil]], the largest oil company.<ref>{{cite book|title=American Entrepreneur: The Fascinating Stories of the People Who Defined Business in the United States| publisher= AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn | year = 2009|first=Larry|last = Schweikart}}</ref>According to historian David Burton, “When it came to domestic political concerns, TR’s Bete Noire was the plutocracy.<ref>[http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=zMdfna-aocwC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=theodore+roosevelt+plutocracy&source=bl&ots=EJBW_Gmgdc&sig=J60RKfkJSqoqBsXzL0outK0Xs9s&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=NL-FU4GWBcLf8AWh34CgDQ&ved=0CG0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=theodore%20roosevelt%20plutocracy&f=false David Henry Burton: Theodore Rooselvelt, American Politician, An Assessment, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1997]</ref> In his autobiographical account of taking on monopolistic corporations as president, TR recounted<blockquote>’’ …we had come to the stage where for our people what was needed was a real democracy; and of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.’’<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/55/12.html Theodore Roosevelt: Theodore Roosevelt: an autobiography. New York, Macmillan, 1913]</ref></blockquote> |
||
The [[Sherman Antitrust Act]] had been enacted in 1890, with large industries reaching [[Monopoly|monopolistic]] or near-monopolistic levels of [[market concentration]] and [[financial capital]] increasingly integrating corporations, a handful of very wealthy heads of large corporations began to exert increasing influence over industry, public opinion and politics after the Civil War. Money, according to contemporary [[Progressive movement|progressive]] and journalist [[Walter Weyl]], was "the mortar of this edifice", with ideological differences among politicians fading and the political realm becoming "''a mere branch'' in a still larger, integrated business. The state, which through the party formally sold favors to the large corporations, became one of their departments."<ref>{{cite book|last=Bowman|first=Scott R.|title=The modern corporation and American political thought: law, power, and ideology|year=1996|publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press|location=University Park, Pa.|isbn=0271014733|pages=92–103}}</ref> |
|||
In his book ''[[The Conscience of a Liberal]]'', in a section entitled The Politics of Plutocracy, [[economist]] [[Paul Krugman]] says plutocracy took hold because of three factors: at that time, the poorest quarter of American residents (African-Americans and non-naturalized immigrants) were ineligible to vote, the wealthy funded the campaigns of politicians they preferred, and [[Electoral fraud#Vote buying|vote buying]] was "feasible, easy and widespread", as were other forms of [[electoral fraud]] such as [[Electoral fraud#Ballot stuffing|ballot-box stuffing]] and [[Electoral fraud#Intimidation|intimidation of the other party's voters]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Krugman|first=Paul|title=The conscience of a liberal|year=2009|publisher=Norton|location=New York|isbn=0393333132|pages=21–26|edition=[Pbk. ed.]}}</ref> |
In his book ''[[The Conscience of a Liberal]]'', in a section entitled The Politics of Plutocracy, [[economist]] [[Paul Krugman]] says plutocracy took hold because of three factors: at that time, the poorest quarter of American residents (African-Americans and non-naturalized immigrants) were ineligible to vote, the wealthy funded the campaigns of politicians they preferred, and [[Electoral fraud#Vote buying|vote buying]] was "feasible, easy and widespread", as were other forms of [[electoral fraud]] such as [[Electoral fraud#Ballot stuffing|ballot-box stuffing]] and [[Electoral fraud#Intimidation|intimidation of the other party's voters]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Krugman|first=Paul|title=The conscience of a liberal|year=2009|publisher=Norton|location=New York|isbn=0393333132|pages=21–26|edition=[Pbk. ed.]}}</ref> |
||
====Post World War II==== |
|||
In modern times, the term is sometimes used pejoratively to refer to societies rooted in state-corporate capitalism or which prioritize the accumulation of wealth over other interests. According to [[Kevin Phillips (political commentator)|Kevin Phillips]], author and political strategist to [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[Richard Nixon]], the [[United States]] is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_phillips.html Transcript. Bill Moyers Interviews Kevin Phillips]. [[NOW with Bill Moyers]] 4.09.04 | PBS</ref> |
In modern times, the term is sometimes used pejoratively to refer to societies rooted in state-corporate capitalism or which prioritize the accumulation of wealth over other interests. According to [[Kevin Phillips (political commentator)|Kevin Phillips]], author and political strategist to [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[Richard Nixon]], the [[United States]] is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_phillips.html Transcript. Bill Moyers Interviews Kevin Phillips]. [[NOW with Bill Moyers]] 4.09.04 | PBS</ref> |
||
The U.S. instituted progressive taxation in 1913, but according to [[Shamus Khan]], in the 1970s, elites used their increasing political power to lower their taxes, and today successfully employ what political scientist Jeffrey Winters calls "the income defense industry" to greatly reduce their taxes.<ref>Kahn, Shamus (18 September 2012) [http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/18/the-rich-havent-always-hated-taxes/ "The Rich Haven’t Always Hated Taxes"] ''Time Magazine''</ref> |
|||
[[Chrystia Freeland]], author of ''[[Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else]]'' says that the present trend towards plutocracy may not be a deliberate power grab:<ref>National Public Radio (October 15, 2012) [http://www.npr.org/2012/10/15/162799512/a-startling-gap-between-us-and-them-in-plutocrats "A Startling Gap Between Us And Them In 'Plutocrats'"]</ref> |
|||
{{quote|You don't do this in a kind of chortling, smoking your cigar, conspiratorial thinking way. You do it by persuading yourself that what is in your own personal self-interest is in the interests of everybody else. So you persuade yourself that, actually, government services, things like spending on education, which is what created that social mobility in the first place, need to be cut so that the deficit will shrink, so that your tax bill doesn't go up. And what I really worry about is, there is so much money and so much power at the very top, and the gap between those people at the very top and everybody else is so great, that we are going to see social mobility choked off and society transformed. | Chrystia Freeland | NPR}} |
|||
When the Nobel-Prize winning economist [[Joseph Stiglitz]] wrote the 2011 ''Vanity Fair'' magazine article entitled "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%", the title as well as the content pointed to evidence that the United States is increasingly ruled by the wealthiest 1%. In it he states,<ref>Joseph E. Stiglitz (May 2011) [http://relooney.info/0_New_10646.pdf "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%"] ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]''</ref> |
|||
{{quote|Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate." |}} |
|||
Bill Moyers interviewed author [[Chrystia Freeland]] and ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' contributing editor [[Matt Taibbi]] on ''[[Moyers & Company]]'' on October 19, 2012. Her book, ''[[Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else]]'' is the inaugural book in the Moyers Book Club.<ref>Chrystia Freeland (October 2012) [http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-plutocracy-rising/] ''Moyers & Company''</ref> |
|||
{{quote| BILL MOYERS: Income inequality has soared to the highest level since the Great Depression...Left unanswered, where does this vast inequality take America? |
|||
CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well, I think to a very bad place. And I see two real and present dangers. One is that you see an increase of the political capture. |
|||
BILL MOYERS: Of what? |
|||
CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Of the political capture. So of the people at the very, very top, capturing the political system. And most crucially, I think something that an economist, a guy called Willem Buiter, who's the chief economist at Citigroup, he calls it cognitive capture. Where he says, look, it's not like this vast conspiracy. It's not as if, you know, everyone is on the payroll of the plutocrats. |
|||
And this guy, okay, he is now the chief economist of Citigroup. He wrote this when he was an academic economist. But so it's, he's hardly, you know, some kind of Marxist on the barricades. His argument was that part of the reason the financial crisis happened is the entire intellectual establishment, not just people inside investment banks, but regulators, academic economists, financial journalists, had all been captured by the financial sector's vision of how the economy should work. And in particular, light touch regulation. |
|||
And I think there is a broader cognitive capture of, you know, you might call it the intellectual class, the public intellectuals, around maybe the inevitability of plutocracy. You know, as Matt [Taibbi] was saying, this notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault. You're part of this dependent 47 percent. Unions are very bad. All of that sort of stuff. |
|||
So I think that that cognitive capture increases. And I think what you see increasingly is, you know, elites like to think of themselves as acting in the collective interest, even as they act in their personal vested interest. And so what I think you'll end up seeing is social mobility, which is already decreasing in the United States, being increasingly squeezed. You see particularly powerful sectors, finance, oil. I would say the technology sector is going to be next in line, getting lots of government subsidies. |
|||
And meanwhile, I think you see much less money spent on the things that the middle class and the poor need. That's why have this, you know, full bore attack on entitlements, right? Why is the plutocracy so enthusiastic about cutting entitlement spending? Because they don't need it. But they're very worried about their tax dollars funding it.| Moyers & Company}} |
|||
[[Chrystia Freeland]], author of ''Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else'',<ref>{{cite book |first=Chrystia |last=Freeland |authorlink= Chrystia Freeland |title=Plutocrats: the rise of the new global super-rich and the fall of everyone else|date=2012|publisher=Penguin|location=New York|isbn=9781594204098|oclc=780480424 }}</ref> says that the present trend towards plutocracy occurs - and is self-justified - because the rich feel "[their] own personal self-interest is in the interests of everybody else."<ref>National Public Radio (October 15, 2012) [http://www.npr.org/2012/10/15/162799512/a-startling-gap-between-us-and-them-in-plutocrats "A Startling Gap Between Us And Them In 'Plutocrats'"]</ref><ref>See also the Chrystia Freeland interview for the Moyers Book Club (October12, 2012) [http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-plutocracy-rising/ ''Moyers & Company'' Full Show: Plutocracy Rising]</ref> |
|||
Some academic researchers have written that the US political system risks drifting towards a form of [[oligarchy]], through the influence of corporations, the wealthy, and other special interest groups.<ref>Gilens & Page (2014) [http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens], ''Perspectives on Politics,'' [[Princeton University]]. Retrieved 18 April 2014.</ref><ref>[[Thomas Piketty|Piketty, Thomas]] (2014). ''[[Capital in the Twenty-First Century]].'' [[Belknap Press]]. ISBN 067443000X p. 514: *"the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."</ref> |
|||
Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of [[oligarchy]], as individual citizens have less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups upon public policy.<ref>[[Thomas Piketty|Piketty, Thomas]] (2014). ''[[Capital in the Twenty-First Century]].'' [[Belknap Press]]. ISBN 067443000X p. 514: "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."</ref>{{Relevance-inline|date=May 2014}} A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens ([[Princeton University]]) and Benjamin Page ([[Northwestern University]]), which was released in April 2014,<ref>Gilens & Page (2014) [http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens], ''Perspectives on Politics,'' [[Princeton University]]. Retrieved 18 April 2014.</ref> stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." that Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" or "plutocracy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by [[Jeffrey A. Winters]]<ref> Winters, Jeffrey A. “[http://books.google.co.jp/books/about/Oligarchy.html?id=trsFIM5h3P8C&redir_esc=y Oligarchy]" Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 208-254</ref> with respect to the US.<blockquote>''Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.''<ref>Gilens & Page (2014) p. 6</ref> </blockquote> |
|||
An April, 2014 study by Princeton University faculty stated that when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or organized interests, they generally lose.<ref>Gilens, M. and B.I. Page (2014) [http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens"] ''Perspectives on Politics''</ref> The average voter has little influence on government, the study found, but the well-to-do hold tremendous sway.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/21/do-the-rich-call-the-shots-13 ''Do the Rich Call the Shots?] April 23, 2014 ''New York Times''</ref> The study indicated wealthy move national policy in the US, and average Americans are effectively powerless.<ref>Nesbit, J. (April 21, 2014)[http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2014/04/21/oligarchy-nation "Oligarchy Nation: Political scientists find wealthy elites control politics in America"] ''US News& World Report''</ref> Policies supported by economic elites and business interest groups were far more likely to become law than those they opposed, the authors found. Supreme Court decisions like ''[[Citizens United]]'' and the more recent ''[[McCutcheon v. FEC]]'' have made it easier for corporations and wealthy individuals to spend money for political purposes, which could increase their influence over elections and eventually policy decisions.<ref>Clark, M. (April 19, 2014) [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy "U.S. more oligarchy than democracy, study suggests"] ''MSNBC''</ref> Economic élites have a disproportionate influence in Washington, D.C. Their views and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority.<ref>Cassidy, J. (April 18, 2014) [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.html "Is America an Oligarchy?"] ''The New Yorker''</ref> The study said that average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it. In contrast, the preferences of economic elites and interest groups — especially economic elites — are each quite influential, when the preferences of the other two groups are held constant.<ref>Prokop, A. (April 18, 2014) [http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained "The new study about oligarchy that's blowing up the Internet, explained"] ''Vox''</ref> The U.S. government represents not the interests of the majority of citizens but those of the rich and powerful.<ref>Sevcik, J.C. (April 16, 2014) [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/04/16/The-US-is-not-a-democracy-but-an-oligarchy-study-concludes/2761397680051/ "The US is not a democracy but an oligarchy, study concludes"] ''UPI''</ref> |
|||
On August 13, 2014, on [[Al Jazeera]], in response to questions related to US responses to the Israeli/Gaza situation, professor [[Noam Chomsky]] of MIT effectively repeated the quote on American public influence over policies. When questioned further, he suggested that significant amounts of research indicated that the US was in effect a plutocracy.{{cn|date=August 2014}} |
|||
===Russia=== |
|||
A report by [[Credit Suisse]] in 2013 states that Russia has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world, apart from small Caribbean nations with resident billionaires. Worldwide, there is one billionaire for every USD 170 billion in household wealth; Russia has one for every USD 11 billion. Worldwide, billionaires collectively account for 1%– 2% of total household wealth; in Russia today 110 billionaires own 35% of all wealth."<ref>[https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=BCDB1364-A105-0560-1332EC9100FF5C83 Global Wealth Report] Credit Suisse, p October 2013 page 53 </ref> |
|||
==As a propaganda term== |
==As a propaganda term== |
||
Line 81: | Line 49: | ||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
{{Portal|Politics}} |
{{Portal|Politics}} |
||
{{colbegin||12em}} |
|||
<div style="column-count:3;-moz-column-count:3;-webkit-column-count:3"> |
|||
* [[Anarcho-capitalism]] |
|||
* [[Corporatocracy]] |
* [[Corporatocracy]] |
||
* [[Oligarchy]] |
* [[Oligarchy]] |
||
* [[ |
* [[Plutonomy]] |
||
* [[Anti-globalization]] |
|||
* [[Chaebol]] |
|||
* [[Corporate abuse]] |
|||
* [[Corporate republic]] |
* [[Corporate republic]] |
||
* [[Megacorporation]] |
|||
* [[Meritocracy]] |
* [[Meritocracy]] |
||
* [[Netocracy]] |
* [[Netocracy]] |
||
{{colend}} |
|||
* [["Occupy" protests]] |
|||
* [[Political action committee]] |
|||
* [[Zaibatsu]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Line 101: | Line 63: | ||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
* Howard, Milford Wriarson (1895). [http://books.google.com/books?id=-RoPAAAAYAAJ ''The American plutocracy''.] New York: |
* Howard, Milford Wriarson (1895). [http://books.google.com/books?id=-RoPAAAAYAAJ ''The American plutocracy''.] New York: Holland Publishing. |
||
* Norwood, Thomas Manson (1888). [http://books.google.com/books?id=7lYYAAAAYAAJ ''Plutocracy: or, American white slavery; a politico-social novel''.] New York: The [[American News Company]]. |
* Norwood, Thomas Manson (1888). [http://books.google.com/books?id=7lYYAAAAYAAJ ''Plutocracy: or, American white slavery; a politico-social novel''.] New York: The [[American News Company]]. |
||
* Pettigrew, Richard Franklin (1921). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=JULLSNa-aLEC Triumphant Plutocracy: The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920.]'' New York: The Academy Press. |
* Pettigrew, Richard Franklin (1921). ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=JULLSNa-aLEC Triumphant Plutocracy: The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920.]'' New York: The Academy Press. |
||
* Reed, John Calvin (1903). [http://books.google.com/books?id=8zIoAAAAYAAJ ''The New Plutocracy''.] New York: Abbey Press. |
* Reed, John Calvin (1903). [http://books.google.com/books?id=8zIoAAAAYAAJ ''The New Plutocracy''.] New York: Abbey Press. |
||
* Winters, Jeffrey A. (2011). "[http://books.google.co.jp/books/about/Oligarchy.html?id=trsFIM5h3P8C&redir_esc=y Oligarchy]" Cambridge University Press |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
* {{Wiktionary-inline}} |
* {{Wiktionary-inline}} |
||
* {{Wikiquote-inline}} |
* {{Wikiquote-inline}} |
||
* [http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-plutocracy-rising/ Bill Moyers: Plutocracy Rising] |
|||
[[Category:Political philosophy]] |
[[Category:Political philosophy]] |
Revision as of 06:53, 13 September 2014
Part of the Politics series |
Basic forms of government |
---|
List of countries by system of government |
![]() |
Plutocracy (from Greek πλοῦτος, ploutos 'wealth', and κράτος, kratos 'power, dominion, rule') or plutarchy, defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term was in 1652.[1] Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.[2]
Usage
The term plutocracy is generally used as a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition.[3][4] Throughout history, political thinkers such as Winston Churchill, 19th-century French sociologist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville, 19th-century Spanish monarchist Juan Donoso Cortés and today Noam Chomsky have condemned plutocrats for ignoring their social responsibilities, using their power to serve their own purposes and thereby increasing poverty and nurturing class conflict, corrupting societies with greed and hedonism.[5][6]
Examples
Examples of plutocracies include the Roman Empire, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa, and pre-World War II Empire of Japan (the zaibatsu).[citation needed]
One modern, formal example of what some critics have described as a plutocracy is the City of London.[7] The City (not the whole of modern London but the area of the ancient city, about 1 sq mile or 2.5 km2, which now mainly comprises the financial district) has a unique electoral system for its local administration. More than two-thirds of voters are not residents, but rather representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City, with votes distributed according to their numbers of employees. The principal justification for this arrangement is that most of the services provided by the Corporation are used by the businesses in the City. In fact about 450,000 non-residents constitute the city's day-time population, far outnumbering the City's 7,000 residents.[8]
Modern politics
Historically, wealthy individuals and organizations have exerted influence over the political arena. In the modern era, many democratic republics permit fundraising for politicians who frequently rely on such income for advertising their candidacy to the voting public.
Whether through individuals, corporations or advocacy groups, such donations are often believed to engender a cronyist or patronage system by which major contributors are rewarded on a quid pro quo basis. While campaign donations need not directly affect the legislative decisions of elected representatives, the natural expectation of donors is that their needs will be served by the person to whom they donated. If not, it is in their self-interest to fund a different candidate or political organization.
While quid pro quo agreements are generally illegal in most democracies, they are difficult to prove, short of a well-documented paper trail. A core basis of democracy, being a politician's ability to freely advocate policies which benefit his or her constituents, also makes it difficult to prove that doing so might be a crime. Even the granting of appointed positions to a well-documented contributor may not transgress the law, particularly if the appointee appears to be suitably qualified for the post. Some systems even specifically provide for such patronage.
United States
Some modern historians, politicians and economists state that the United States was effectively plutocratic for at least part of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era periods between the end of the Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression.[9][10][11][12][13][14] President Theodore Roosevelt became known as the "trust-buster" for his aggressive use of United States antitrust law, through which he managed to break up such major combinations as the largest railroad and Standard Oil, the largest oil company.[15]According to historian David Burton, “When it came to domestic political concerns, TR’s Bete Noire was the plutocracy.[16] In his autobiographical account of taking on monopolistic corporations as president, TR recounted
’’ …we had come to the stage where for our people what was needed was a real democracy; and of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.’’[17]
The Sherman Antitrust Act had been enacted in 1890, with large industries reaching monopolistic or near-monopolistic levels of market concentration and financial capital increasingly integrating corporations, a handful of very wealthy heads of large corporations began to exert increasing influence over industry, public opinion and politics after the Civil War. Money, according to contemporary progressive and journalist Walter Weyl, was "the mortar of this edifice", with ideological differences among politicians fading and the political realm becoming "a mere branch in a still larger, integrated business. The state, which through the party formally sold favors to the large corporations, became one of their departments."[18]
In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, in a section entitled The Politics of Plutocracy, economist Paul Krugman says plutocracy took hold because of three factors: at that time, the poorest quarter of American residents (African-Americans and non-naturalized immigrants) were ineligible to vote, the wealthy funded the campaigns of politicians they preferred, and vote buying was "feasible, easy and widespread", as were other forms of electoral fraud such as ballot-box stuffing and intimidation of the other party's voters.[19]
Post World War II
In modern times, the term is sometimes used pejoratively to refer to societies rooted in state-corporate capitalism or which prioritize the accumulation of wealth over other interests. According to Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[20]
Chrystia Freeland, author of Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else,[21] says that the present trend towards plutocracy occurs - and is self-justified - because the rich feel "[their] own personal self-interest is in the interests of everybody else."[22][23]
Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy, as individual citizens have less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups upon public policy.[24][relevant?] A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University), which was released in April 2014,[25] stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." that Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" or "plutocracy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey A. Winters[26] with respect to the US.
Most recently, Jeffrey Winters has posited a comparative theory of “Oligarchy,” in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a “civil oligarchy” like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.[27]
On August 13, 2014, on Al Jazeera, in response to questions related to US responses to the Israeli/Gaza situation, professor Noam Chomsky of MIT effectively repeated the quote on American public influence over policies. When questioned further, he suggested that significant amounts of research indicated that the US was in effect a plutocracy.[citation needed]
As a propaganda term
In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the Communist International, western democratic states were referred to as plutocracies, with the implication being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them to ransom.[28][29] Plutocracy replaced democracy and capitalism as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War.[29] For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews".[29]
See also
References
- ^ "Plutocracy". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
- ^ "The study of attitudes is reasonably easy [...] it's concluded that for roughly 70% of the population - the lower 70% on the wealth/income scale - they have no influence on policy whatsoever. They're effectively disenfranchised. As you move up the wealth/income ladder, you get a little bit more influence on policy. When you get to the top, which is maybe a tenth of one percent, people essentially get what they want, i.e. they determine the policy. So the proper term for that is not democracy; it's plutocracy." Extract from the transcript of a speech delivered by Noam Chomsky in Bonn, Germany, at DW Global Media Forum, 15 August 2013.
- ^ Fiske, Edward B.; Mallison, Jane; Hatcher, David (2009). Fiske 250 words every high school freshman needs to know. Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks. p. 250. ISBN 1402218400.
- ^ Coates, ed. by Colin M. (2006). Majesty in Canada: essays on the role of royalty. Toronto: Dundurn. p. 119. ISBN 1550025864.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help) - ^ Conservative thinkers: from John Adams to Winston Churchill. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 2006. pp. 19–68. ISBN 1412805260.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
missing|last=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Toupin, Alexis de Tocqueville; edited by Roger Boesche; translated by James; Boesche, Roger (1985). Selected letters on politics and society. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 197–198. ISBN 0520057511.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest, The Guardian, retrieved 01/11/2011
- ^ René Lavanchy (12 February 2009). "Labour runs in City of London poll against 'get-rich' bankers". Tribune. Retrieved 14 February 2009.[dead link]
- ^ Pettigrew, Richard Franklin (2010). Triumphant Plutocracy: The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920. Nabu Press. ISBN 1146542747.
- ^ Calvin Reed, John (1903). The New Plutocracy. Kessinger Publishing, LLC (2010 reprint). ISBN 1120909155.
- ^ Brinkmeyer, Robert H. (2009). The fourth ghost: white Southern writers and European fascism, 1930-1950. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. p. 331. ISBN 0807133833.
- ^ Allitt, Patrick (2009). The conservatives: ideas and personalities throughout American history. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 143. ISBN 0300118945.
- ^ Ryan, foreword by Vincent P. De Santis; edited by Leonard Schlup, James G. (2003). Historical dictionary of the Gilded Age. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. p. 145. ISBN 0765603314.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Conservative thinkers: from John Adams to Winston Churchill. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 2006. p. 103. ISBN 1412805260.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
missing|last=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Schweikart, Larry (2009). American Entrepreneur: The Fascinating Stories of the People Who Defined Business in the United States. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
- ^ David Henry Burton: Theodore Rooselvelt, American Politician, An Assessment, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1997
- ^ Theodore Roosevelt: Theodore Roosevelt: an autobiography. New York, Macmillan, 1913
- ^ Bowman, Scott R. (1996). The modern corporation and American political thought: law, power, and ideology. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 92–103. ISBN 0271014733.
- ^ Krugman, Paul (2009). The conscience of a liberal ([Pbk. ed.] ed.). New York: Norton. pp. 21–26. ISBN 0393333132.
- ^ Transcript. Bill Moyers Interviews Kevin Phillips. NOW with Bill Moyers 4.09.04 | PBS
- ^ Freeland, Chrystia (2012). Plutocrats: the rise of the new global super-rich and the fall of everyone else. New York: Penguin. ISBN 9781594204098. OCLC 780480424.
- ^ National Public Radio (October 15, 2012) "A Startling Gap Between Us And Them In 'Plutocrats'"
- ^ See also the Chrystia Freeland interview for the Moyers Book Club (October12, 2012) Moyers & Company Full Show: Plutocracy Rising
- ^ Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press. ISBN 067443000X p. 514: "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."
- ^ Gilens & Page (2014) Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Perspectives on Politics, Princeton University. Retrieved 18 April 2014.
- ^ Winters, Jeffrey A. “Oligarchy" Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 208-254
- ^ Gilens & Page (2014) p. 6
- ^ http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol02/no02/editors2.htm
- ^ a b c Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul (2006). World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 522. ISBN 978-1-57607-940-9. Cite error: The named reference "blamires" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Further reading
- Howard, Milford Wriarson (1895). The American plutocracy. New York: Holland Publishing.
- Norwood, Thomas Manson (1888). Plutocracy: or, American white slavery; a politico-social novel. New York: The American News Company.
- Pettigrew, Richard Franklin (1921). Triumphant Plutocracy: The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920. New York: The Academy Press.
- Reed, John Calvin (1903). The New Plutocracy. New York: Abbey Press.
- Winters, Jeffrey A. (2011). "Oligarchy" Cambridge University Press