Plutocracy...

[Trajan]

Naw.

They wanted their "own" leaders.

wrong again, but I am used to your free versing anything requiring something more than 'googlect' .....ttfn.

Your Eurocentrism? is showing again. But I have no trouble with it.

Having a myopic view of history and culture is no crime.

uh hu, the trouble you have is with history and understanding certain Asian mindsets, ala our misunderstanding in Vietnam, there's your clue.

Go, google, now= googlect.......

maybe you'll think it thorough.

Eurocentrism? Your googlect is showing.Fail.

 

[Wry Catcher]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

I don't mind the wealthy having power. There are other ways to have power other than influence over the government. Rich people have other power besides being able to influence government.

I think it's good to have a balance, with the government having some power and individuals having some power. I don't like the idea of the government having a monopoly of power. I do believe individuals have rights that shouldn't be violated by the majority in a society.

interesting point, especially where you hint at what I was trying to get across to Rye kvetcher to think of, other forms of power , not just monetary power and the plays they make are not just FOR money...........its influence power.

but thats apparently too challenging, so don't expect an answer on this.

Too challenging, I think not. But what's the question you want answered?

Wealth has always had power, and as the man said, power tends to corrupt. At some point power can morph into control and at that point a pure plutocracy exists; and, a pure plutocaracy would likely to be a totalitarian government.
Of course the tyranny of the majority must be curtailed, how better to prevent that then by the feedom for all parties to have equal rights in a body of law, something we have but which is often overlooked by narrow interests (see Arizona Immigration Law 1070, for a recent example).

Your interesting point escapes me. If you phrase the answer, maybe I can answer with a question.

Answer: "Trajan's Points, for 100 Alex."

Question: "What is, who the hell knows"

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

I think what we have is a perfect shit storm of a plutocratic / corporatist hybrid. It will not bode well for the rest of us, that is for sure...

 

[georgephillip]

You do realize that if socialism is actually implemented, we will have a government by the wealthy dont you? Because under socialism only the political elites have money. The people sure as heck don't.

This is only true if your definition of "socialism" corresponds to that of David Rockefeller or Lenin.

There Are Alternative definitions that preclude the accumulation of vast private fortunes.

Anarcho-syndicalism:

"Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system, regarding it as wage slavery, and state or private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions.

"Not all seek to abolish money per se."

 

[Agit8r]

Well, plutocracy has existed. true socialism never has (and may not be possible)

If one examines the Soviet Union, one sees that it was a plutocracy by the politburo

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, plutocracy has existed. true socialism never has (and may not be possible)

If one examines the Soviet Union, one sees that it was a plutocracy by the politburo

Exactly, thank you. In fact both the Soviet Union and China became the antithesis of a workers paradise, very conservative and rigid governments which benefited the powerful and not the powerless.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Have we become a Plutocracy? Was Citizens United v. FEC the final straw for our transition from a Republic to a Plutocracy? Does your representative in Congress represent your interests, or the interests of those who support the your representative with campaign 'donations'?

 

[snjmom]

Citizens United cries out for an Amendment.

 

[Cuyo]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

It's clear that you don't grok that Socialism is just a front for a particularly nasty form of Plutocracy.

Yes, yes. Anything that's bad, Socialism is 'it.' Very original.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

Simple definition of socialism - People first

Simple definition of a plutocracy - Monied interests only.

I have no illusions that Americans have the slightest clue of what socialism is .. even though it has ALWAYS existed in this nation.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Have we become a Plutocracy? Was Citizens United v. FEC the final straw for our transition from a Republic to a Plutocracy? Does your representative in Congress represent your interests, or the interests of those who support the your representative with campaign 'donations'?

Of course we are a plutocracy.

The corporate will even controls American elections. They chose who wins and who loses.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

In November a new class of Republicans were elected and hope to reduce government spending to 2008 levels. Cutting programs which benefit the poor, aged, and infirm (Social Security, SSI and Medicare) is one of their goals.

Traditional Republicans continue to argue for debt reduction but seem unwilling to pull back our "world policeman" role, something Goldwater Republicans advocated 45 years ago.

Boith factions support continuing the government largess to the military-industrial complex, the oil cartels, big farma and big pharma.

The Republican Party seems willing to privatize every aspect of government, achieving the dream of Grover Norquist.

The obvious question becomes, have we become a Plutocracy? What might this mean for the majority of Americans?

(Note: Newt Gingrich, has recently called for the elimination of the FDA.)

 

[mdn2000]

This all sounds like bullshit to me, especially when I read that the Communist USSR is called "Conservative".

Marxism failed because Marxism is flawed.

The USSR was pure Marxism. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fight against reducing our governments size is described as the Rich controling and destroying the poor, which is what we wish to do, I hope to eliminate the poor completely.

Democrats create programs that encourage people to be poor while making themselves rich.

Liberals and Democrats are the rich people we must fight against.

 

[Agit8r]

"The great object should be to combat the evil... By establishing a political equality among all... By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches... By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort" -- James Madison

 

[Agit8r]

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit. Had I never been in the American Colonies, but was to form my Judgment of Civil Society by what I have lately seen [in Ireland and Scotland], I should never advise a Nation of Savages to admit of Civilisation: For I assure you, that in the Possession and Enjoyment of the various Comforts of Life, compar'd to these People every Indian is a Gentleman: And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"

-- Benjamin Franklin; letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

 

[Wry Catcher]

This all sounds like bullshit to me, especially when I read that the Communist USSR is called "Conservative".

Marxism failed because Marxism is flawed.

The USSR was pure Marxism. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fight against reducing our governments size is described as the Rich controling and destroying the poor, which is what we wish to do, I hope to eliminate the poor completely.

Democrats create programs that encourage people to be poor while making themselves rich.

Liberals and Democrats are the rich people we must fight against.

Do you also believe:
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

 

[Agit8r]

"wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want of it. On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence." -- Thomas Paine; 'Dissertation on the First Principles of Government'

 

[Agit8r]

"man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term... to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

-- Thomas Jefferson; Letter to Edward Carrington (January 16, 1787)

 

[mdn2000]

This all sounds like bullshit to me, especially when I read that the Communist USSR is called "Conservative".

Marxism failed because Marxism is flawed.

The USSR was pure Marxism. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fight against reducing our governments size is described as the Rich controling and destroying the poor, which is what we wish to do, I hope to eliminate the poor completely.

Democrats create programs that encourage people to be poor while making themselves rich.

Liberals and Democrats are the rich people we must fight against.

Do you also believe:
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

War is peace, war interupted is chaos. War should end with a solution, if it does not, did the war end?

Freedom is slavery, the amount of our labor and personal property that our government confinscates through tax, laws, regulations, and a poorly run, redundant bueacrisy amounts to slavery.

Ignorance is bliss, knowledge is strength, the strong carry the heaviest burden.

 

[editec]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

You can have a plutocracy in any form of government and with any kind of economy, too.

Socialism is certainly no exception to that rule. Neither obviously is capitalism ever going to prevent plutarchies from forming

In fact, the very nature of government tends to lead to plutarchy because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Governments have power.

Governments are run by people

People are corruptable

Ergo sooner or later every government becomes corrupt UNLESS the people fight back and prevent it.

But please note that people are corruptable, such that no tyrant on earth has ever gone out of business because he couldn't find willing minions to do his bidding.

If you think that any constitution or set of laws, any economic system, or strcture of government can prevent that from happening, then you haven't been paying attention to history.




.