Plutocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forms of government
This series is part of the Politics series
List of forms of government Anarchy Aristocracy Autocracy Democracy Despotism Dictatorship Feudalism Monarchy Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy Oligarchy Plutocracy Republic Single-party state Theocracy Tyranny
Politics Portal · edit

A plutocracy is a form of government where the state's power is centralized in an affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The word plutocracy itself is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.

1 Usage
2 External links
3 See also

[edit] Usage

The term plutocracy is generally used to describe two distinct concepts: a historical term and a modern political term.

[edit] Historical

Traditionally, plutocracy is the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include some city-states in Ancient Greece and the Italian merchant republics of Venice, Florence, and Genoa. Plutocracies typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anomie.^{[citation needed]} Aristocracies are an example of plutocracies that typically develop early in the history of a nation state.

Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there has been "the fusion of money and government." [1]

Before the equal voting rights movement managed to end it in the early 20th century, many countries used a system where rich persons had more votes than poor. A factory owner may for instance have had 2000 votes while a worker had one, or if they were very poor no right to vote at all. Even artificial persons such as companies had voting rights. However, it would take until 1945 before persons living on welfare and persons in personal bankruptcy would get voting rights.[2][3]

[edit] Modern Political

The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to the great and undue influence (both positive and negative) the wealthy have on the political process in contemporary society. Positive influence includes campaign contributions and bribes; negative influence includes refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, and so on. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues. Recent examples include Rupert Murdoch's News Corp's alleged political agendas in Australia, the UK[4] and the United States or George Soros' efforts to back left-leaning PACs (political action committees) and the oil industry oligarchy which may back right-leaning PACs.

Recently, there have been numerous cases of wealthy individuals and organizations exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favorable legislation. (see: Lobbying) Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives; however it would be unlikely that no politicians are influenced by these contributions. The more cynical might describe these donations as bribes, although legally they are not. In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions, these reforms are often called clean money, clean elections reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not address the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources.

[edit] Plutocracy-Forms of Control

A Plutocracy is a government controlled by that miniscule percentage of fabulously wealthy individuals found in most societies. In many forms of government, those in power benefit financially, sometimes enough to belong to the aforementioned wealthy class. This gives rise to the theory that any governmental system can, and will eventually progress to a plutocratic state given enough time and resources.

Classically, a plutocracy was an oligarchy, which is to say a government controlled by the wealthy few. Usually this meant that these ‘plutocrats’ controlled not only the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of government, but also most of the natural resources, including the armed forces. Some might argue that this is still the case in many countries worldwide, and this, unfortunately, would be accurate.

In contemporary context, a plutocracy is a political system in which wealth is used to influence, and sometimes outright control the political process. It extends beyond the expenditure of money on advertising, marketing, or campaign contributions. In many cases the more classical forms of persuasion; bribery, coercion, extortion, are undoubtedly utilized. But, in an age where information can be instantaneously transmitted by billboards, television, radio, and most especially the internet, the traditional, more archaic, forms of persuasion are largely unnecessary. Why indeed waste time on threatening opposition with harm to their persons, finances or reputations when you own all of the media outlets? The point here is that in this day and age, our plutocrats have the resources to move beyond the realm of financial manipulation, and into the domain of psychological control.

In it’s most recent publication of America’s 400 Most Wealthy individuals, Forbes magazine found that all of those listed had at least $1 Billion. Were these 400 elite to combine their respective earnings, it would roughly equal $1.25 trillion. These are the earnings of only a few of the ridiculously well-off citizens of America, and the figures do not take into account the plethora of multi-millionaires which dot the American landscape. Now just imagine what that kind of money can do. It is the difference between buying someone’s loyalty, and buying their organization right out from under them. Once a group of people or an individual control such a media outlet, these parties can selectively choose the things you see and hear.

I postulate that plutocracy is the inevitable result of the amassing of personal wealth by a relatively small group of the elite wealthy, which transcends governmental styles, but which thrives in a system where there are little or no restrictions on the accumulation of personal wealth, i.e. a capitalist society of the laissez-faire persuasion. To simplify, the accumulation of wealth, and thereby power is a self-replicating pattern which given the necessary time and momentum concentrates most of the resources of a nation into a disproportionately small percentage of the population.