Close Topic Options

Is The U S A...

Do you think that the USA is really a plutocracy?

"We"re not a democracy. It's a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we"re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy." -- Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
-- Benito Mussolini

A U Is

The US is supposed to be a republic but changes in attitude and practice have turned it ever nearer to a democratic form of government, which the Framers rejected - and quite rightly - as incompatible with property rights (and thus individual freedom). It would end in either tyranny or anarchy (or both) they said, as every other democracy ever did.

Yes, fascist would be the correct term to define the philosophy pursued by government/monopolies today. This gets a little confusing so let me explain what I feel is the reality here:

Private capitalism is quite consistent with freedom, but the "corporations" to which you refer that exert plutocratic control over government and with government (the both being controlled by international bankers - FRS, IMF et al) are not truly free-enterprise constructs. They are actually enforced monopolies which do *not* exist and are not part of a truly free-enterprise system. Monopolism is a trait of collectivism (socialism).

Genuine free-enterprise in most businesses and individuals' lives is under threat from democracy, which is why it is supported by those in power - because they get more power.

It all comes down to two forces: the one upholding the sanctity of private property rights, the other the elimination of the same. Freedom versus slavery might be a more bold way of putting it.

This is why "corporations" (acting as fronts for the bankers) have financed communism in other countries so bountifully.

Skousen's books - "The Naked Communist" and "The Naked Capitalist" - look into this very thoroughly.

Dubhdara.

Is The U S A... History & Civil Business Politics

I think this is so true. I would not define the US government as a republic but I would say it changes constantly in attitude and practise depending its interests.

A U Is

I think a plutocracy is the inevitable result of any party political system. George Washington and other founding fathers hoped to avoid the traps of political parties which were so prevelant in England.
Anybody running a national campaign needs a lot of money to finance national ads, funds to drive their motorcades across the country to "meet with the people", and the numerous other things involved in any campaign. To get the money needed for their campaigns, those running for office turn to wealthy corporations, hoping to rake in huge contributions. In turn, if the person is elected to office, they will act very favorably towards the corporations who funded them, fearing retaliation from the corporation should anything bad happen.

A U Is

The rich have always had more "say-so" than the rest of us. This is in nearly all cultures and mostly unavoidable. However, they are also the ones taking some of the larger risks, which our governments and society enjoy greatly. My risk from moving from one engineering job to the next is not even a blip on the map of our society. However, when the extremely wealthy get into a business or exit it, things happen. This is power.

I dont believe that anyone has achieved a plutocracy to date. Our current politicians walk a mighty fine line of satisfying money and those that put them in office. The media is even more viguelent today in uncoverying wrong doings of our politicians than ever before and they arent great lovers of corporate giants.

While I actually think of America as a Socialist Republic, I like to joke and call us a Mediacracy (government directed by the media) or a Populacracy (government directed by the popularity polls that week).

Just a thought,

Vincenzo

Is The U S A...

I don't think our government is Plutocracy. Each citizen has the same number of votes. Rich or poor, you get one vote. It is up to each of us to use that vote. It is true that it takes lots of money to run a national campaign, but that doesn't mean those voting don't have a say in how that "wealthy" politician runs things. In addition, most government is done on the local level. These positions are not generally held by wealthy people, but average citizens.

Let's remember that even though they were wealthy by the time they became President, neither Bill Clinton nor Ronald Reagan came from wealthy families. They earned it themselves. That is the supposed "American Dream," is it not?

I agree with what Vicenzo said about being a mediocracy. Many in media have lots to say about how our government is run. They are not all wealthy.

Is U A...

I have to disagree with that. The money required for a campaign has to come from somewhere, since the presidential candidate certainly does not posses the money required to finance the campaign alone. In the 2000 election, the Republican party received large donations from businesses. For example, Philip Morris made a $2 million donation to the Republican Party (https://www.greatsource.com/amgov/almanac/issues/emerging_issues/iss_cfr.html).

While this money is, of course, a donation, meaning that no conditions are attached to it, the party receiving the money, knowing they need it, in order to finance the next campaign, certainly wouldn't mind another donation in 4 years. A company, being interested in their own financial welfare, would be more inclined to donate to the party best expressing their own interests. So who could blame the party for doing their generous donator a small favor?.

So in my opinion, the USA is at the very least a borderline case.

Edited: Pheidon on 12th Jan, 2005 - 7:05pm

Is U A... Politics Business Civil & History

While what you say, Pheidon, is quite true, it doesn't account for the fact that still most government actually takes place at the local level, where this sort of thing doesn't generally come in to play. In addition, corporations don't vote and those people running the corporations still only get one vote each. So regardless of from where the money comes, it is still the individual people who choose to vote for the candidate.