Plutocracy...

[Sallow]

All socialist states. This made up term, plutocrat, just a denial of what we have now in office, a socialist.

It's a modern term..which basically maps to the old favorite conservative ideal governments..aristocracy..and monarchy. Wealth..replacing divinity as the justification for absolute power.

Conservatives like strong leaders..like Kings..or messiahs.

uh huh and say the Vietnamese? think they like strong leaders?

Naw.

They wanted their "own" leaders.

 

[Revere]

Public employees unions are the closest thing to plutocracy.

Closer than the Koch brothers?

Or the US Chamber of Commerce?

the Pentagon?

What positions do either of the first two have in government?

 

[georgephillip]

Funding positions

 

[Wry Catcher]

Public employees unions are the closest thing to plutocracy.

LOL, you're amazing.

 

[georgephillip]

Public employees unions are the closest thing to plutocracy.

LOL, you're amazing.

If fascism comes to the US do you see it as a neoconservative coup or rogue element of the ruling class at the apex which is aided by a mass base (Tea Party?) destroying the electoral process through multifaceted corruption or from the ruling class as a whole?

It Could Happen Here

 

[Revere]

What is either the Koch Brothers or Chamber of Commerce's oneness with government, since that's what fascism is?

Can either of those two groups put you in jail for not buying health insurance?

 

[Shmoogas B]

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.

 

[georgephillip]

What is either the Koch Brothers or Chamber of Commerce's oneness with government, since that's what fascism is?

Can either of those two groups put you in jail for not buying health insurance?

Can you define "oneness with government"?

Fascism has more to do with a corporate perspective, as I understand it:

Fascism - Wiki

"Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4]

"Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6]

"Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism.[7][8][9]

"Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.[10][11][12][13][14]

"Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15]

"They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism.[15]

"Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety."

Charles, David and the Chamber can't put anyone in jail for not buying health insurance, but they can inject millions of dollars into the political campaigns of those who can trade your Medicare for missile defense.

 

[uscitizen]

How naive.

Socialist Leaders lead lavish lifestyles on the backs of their state owned slaves.

Yes and no, depends on what "Socialist" state you are talking about (And seriously, states are rarely, if ever..fully Socialist).

But Plutocrats are rarely elected.

All socialist states. This made up term, plutocrat, just a denial of what we have now in office, a socialist.

Same as the last socialist and his congress.

 

[georgephillip]

For thousands of years all governments' prime directive has been to socialize cost and privatize profit for the greedy few.

Changing anything this traditional isn't possible if you limit your political "choice" to Republican OR Democrat.

Does anyone believe had Ralph Nader or Ron Paul (as a Lib) been elected to the White House in 2008 that Wall Street bonuses would be back to where they were prior to that same election?

Change starts with FLUSHING all Republicans AND Democrats from office.

 

[editec]

EVERY government is a kind of plutocracy.

Every government is either manned by the wealthy or by their servants.

You people keep getting hung up on what they're calling themsevles when what you ought to be evaluating them on is by what they are DOING.

Does it really matter if the person who is ripping you off calls himself as socialist or a capitalist?

I mean really does it matter what they call themselves?

 

[georgephillip]

EVERY government is a kind of plutocracy.

Every government is either manned by the wealthy or by their servants.

You people keep getting hung up on what they're calling themsevles when what you ought to be evaluating them on is by what they are DOING.

Does it really matter if the person who is ripping you off calls himself as socialist or a capitalist?

I mean really does it matter what they call themselves?

Every government that has existed so far has been a plutocracy in one form or another.

War and private debt seem to be their favorite tools for enslaving their populations.

And now war has the power to exterminate the specie...

Your money or your life?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's because for the most part..

It's not.

How naive.

Socialist Leaders lead lavish lifestyles on the backs of their state owned slaves.

Yes and no, depends on what "Socialist" state you are talking about (And seriously, states are rarely, if ever..fully Socialist).

But Plutocrats are rarely elected.

If Plutocrats are seldom elected then we have no problem since Our Government IS elected. I notice before Nov 2 you had no problem with rich democrats in office though?

 

[Wry Catcher]

How naive.

Socialist Leaders lead lavish lifestyles on the backs of their state owned slaves.

Yes and no, depends on what "Socialist" state you are talking about (And seriously, states are rarely, if ever..fully Socialist).

But Plutocrats are rarely elected.

If Plutocrats are seldom elected then we have no problem since Our Government IS elected. I notice before Nov 2 you had no problem with rich democrats in office though?

Your premise suggests Plutocracy is somehow connected to the R's and not the D's. That is simply not true.
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.

I would argue that the recent Citizens United v. FEC decision moves our nation further towards a government where the wealthy, by law, are now more able to "exercise the preponderance of political power" more directly & insidiously.

 

[Trajan]

It's a modern term..which basically maps to the old favorite conservative ideal governments..aristocracy..and monarchy. Wealth..replacing divinity as the justification for absolute power.

Conservatives like strong leaders..like Kings..or messiahs.

uh huh and say the Vietnamese? think they like strong leaders?

Naw.

They wanted their "own" leaders.

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

 

[Trajan]

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.

 

[Sallow]

How naive.

Socialist Leaders lead lavish lifestyles on the backs of their state owned slaves.

Yes and no, depends on what "Socialist" state you are talking about (And seriously, states are rarely, if ever..fully Socialist).

But Plutocrats are rarely elected.

If Plutocrats are seldom elected then we have no problem since Our Government IS elected. I notice before Nov 2 you had no problem with rich democrats in office though?

You know this "how"?

I have a huge problem with the monied class dominating political discourse. It's withering to a Democratic Republic. The Citizens United case was a terrible decision. It displays judicial activism and legislating from the bench at it's worst.

The entire notion that a "corporation" is a person..with limited liability no less..is poisonous to society.

 

[Sallow]

uh huh and say the Vietnamese? think they like strong leaders?

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.

 

[editec]

EVERY government is a kind of plutocracy.

Every government is either manned by the wealthy or by their servants.

You people keep getting hung up on what they're calling themsevles when what you ought to be evaluating them on is by what they are DOING.

Does it really matter if the person who is ripping you off calls himself as socialist or a capitalist?

I mean really does it matter what they call themselves?

Every government that has existed so far has been a plutocracy in one form or another.

War and private debt seem to be their favorite tools for enslaving their populations.

And now war has the power to exterminate the specie...

Your money or your life?

My only correction to that POV is this

Your money THEN you life.