Talk:Plutocracy/Archive 2

RFC on US material
Is this edit, which contains substantial material about the United States being a Plutocracy, proper in this article? Collect (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Absent a clear WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of this interesting but very recent set of claims, not widely accepted in the field, I suggest this edit is improper and will not achieve a consensus for inclusion. I note that "plutocracy" is not the same as "wealth inequality"  nor do the sources support a claim that those who have wealth "govern" the United States to any degree more than all democratic countries in recorded history have had. I note also that the term is primarily used as a pejorative, thus claims must be very carefully valued. Attaching a pejorative to any topic is clearly an area where WP:NPOV must be strictly applied, as the pejorative itself has substantial negative weight by its single application. Collect (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this section is excessively detailed, not presented in a coherent fashion and is of disproportionate size. If pruned VERY VERY substantially however, I think it not wrong that it should be here. There is a huge distinction between Wikipedia appearing to say that US is a plutocracy or that MOST sources say that it is (on the one hand) and that some serious commentators / academics have made this assertion (on the other), even though this particular study is recent, the argument is not and I think it legitimate that Wikipedia should record that this argument exists. I agree with Collect that income inequality in itself does not prove plutocracy, however I think that when laws are being passed which benefit the very wealthy / big corporations, it's very dificult to not see a link between the two. Whether any of us sees such a link is of course central to us making the judgement as to whether a system is or is not plutocratic. I think wording could be used which raised the discussion without implying Wikipedia or Academia knew the answer.Pincrete (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: what support is there for the contention that the peer reviewed literature reviews do not agree with the edit? EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the question posed, and seems to be argumentative rather than aimed at reaching any WP:CONSENSUS here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not the question for the RfC, but, as it might be relevant for discussing what should be in this article: Is there any support for the contention that the peer reviewed literature does agree with the edit?  There are examples of peer-reviewed literature which have been interpreted as stating that the US could be considered a plutocracy.  There are few listed which actually support the statement that the US is a plutocracy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Second the Question Unless there is some argument that "the peer reviewed literature reviews do not agree with the edit" because of WP:SYNTH, this seems like an RFC based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources, including academic, appear to support the claim, and in light of recent events such as the Supreme Courts removing restrictions on politicl spending by corporations, the topic would certainly appear to merit the increasing amount of attention that is being paid to it. If the section needs "pruning", then why an RFC instead of examining the statements in relation to their corresponding sources, etc. I'm not even sure what the objective of the RFC is.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:18, 6 May 2014; 20:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey
Improper The term is perforce pejorative, thus sources must be reliable, widely cited, and make specific claims that the United States is actually a "plutocracy.   The added sources'' and claims fail, though earlier sources are not being considered in this RfC.  Collect (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper. Agree with Collect; few, if any, sources state that the US is actually a "plutocracy". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Proper. The first source I posted clearly stated that political power in the US is controlled by those with more money. Nothing else on the example list has a reference, and I find it silly that these other un-referenced claims are not being questioned. I don't understand why Collect is so outspoken on the topic as it seems he doesn't even live in the country. I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the British political system. How can a country that has unlimited campaign contributions, corporate person-hood, and lobbying in congress not be considered a plutocracy? I notice the Roman Empire is on the list. Did Rome not have a representative democracy? What has the United States done to fix these corruption-based issues that put Rome on this list besides making businesses bigger and more powerful?2605:A000:F2C0:A400:2CA3:F78C:FC4E:DE13 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC) This account has few edits on Wikipedia, and may be a Single Purpose Account Collect (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper. While the wealthy have a lot of influence, this does not mean they "dominate" the government or society, especially in the pejorative sense. They seek votes for office holders and candidates, and have greater or less success depending upon a variety of factors. Seeking to add this term because corporate personhood, campaign contributions, lobbying, etc. smacks of soapboxing. Also, the fact that an editor lives in one country or another does not impact the editing question. (How many WP editors lived under the Roman Empire?) – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (Added comment): Also, the Princeton paper does not use the term "Plutocracy". Unless material directly supports an assertion in the article (e.g., that the US is a plutocracy), then adding Princeton (etc.) is SYNTH. – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for adding that opinion, but it is not the policy-based rationale of the RFC(is there one)--it is a rationale I suggested that is open to discussion. I don't think it takes precedence over the RS material related to oligarchy in this case, but I'm ope to being convinced otherwise. The RFC has no right of premise of exclusion of the material, as far as I can tell. Prove me otherwise, if possible.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Proper the sources and corroborating earlier research are clear and speak for themselves. The problem has been getting much worse, not better. EllenCT (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper Plutocracy is an analytic concept and the U.S. and other countries may be compared with this paradigm. But it is not a clearly defined term like constitutional monarchy or republic. TFD (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

ImproperThe US is a democracy. Lately people have been focusing on income inequality, so terms like plutocracy and oligarchy are bandied about to score political points. In the 1960s people were calling the US government "Fascist". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not an opinion piece.Mattnad (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Proper I don't really see the merits of the objection or the filing of this RFC. Perhaps some clarification is in order.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ubikwit, several editors have provided responses. In this regard, they see the merits of the RFC. You need support for the view that the RFC is fatally flawed. Moreover, you are lacking support for addition (and re-addition) of the material to the article while the RFC is running. – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply but will have to ask for specifics.
 * In light of statements such as " I agree with Collect that income inequality in itself does not prove plutocracy, however I think that when laws are being passed which benefit the very wealthy / big corporations, it's very dificult to not see a link between the two. Whether any of us sees such a link is of course central to us making the judgement as to whether a system is or is not plutocratic. I think wording could be used which raised the discussion without implying Wikipedia or Academia knew the answer." I'm left wondering if there is anything in this RFC that calls the sources (attributed) into question on a valid basis. Synth may be question, but would appear to be a separate one from that posed in this vague and unspecific RFC.--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My initial survey response was general and phrased as such in an effort to avoid the problems created when the RFC was drafted. You will note that I've been removing some "off-topic" material from the article. If the material does not directly support the topic of Plutocracy, it does not belong in the article. Also, we have WP:SYNTH problems with much of the material (not just the Princeton stuff). Much of the material says "A: There are a lot of rich people in America.[x] B: Plutocracies are typically composed of rich people.[y] Therefore, C: Because America has a lot of rich people it is a plutocracy." – S. Rich (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper Per TFD. An elastic term not of great utility here. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm not an experienced editor and so I might be wrong. However, I would propose that we could rephrase it to "and according to a number of [academic] publications, United States." Alternatively: "and according to a number of [academic] publications (that may not reflect the mainstream view), United States."Dmatteng (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The statements are already attributed. A hypothetical question for you though, as you are relatively new to editing, is how would you define "mainstream views"? It'smore of a rhetorical question, I suppose, so i'll answer it, "you don't", because that is not an evaluation in which Wikipedia editors engage. We just edit articles based on WP:RS with respect to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just added my 2 cents. Regarding mainstream views I think I saw it written this way in one of the articles. On some topics the mainstream views can be easily defined. Dmatteng (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper. This is just someone who searched for examples of the words "plutocracy" and "United States" appearing in the same article. Most of the cited articles don't support the claim being made at all. I doubt that the editor even read them. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This argument can be disregarded as ad hominem. In addition, because the paper has received a good deal of press, I suspect most of us have read it with interest. Joja  lozzo  00:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The comment about the editor reading or not reading the articles may be ad hominem, but the argument overall by cheerful dwarf is valid. If the the examples (cited or searched for) do not support the claim, then including them, as cheerful dwarf says, is improper. – S. Rich (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the cited articles don't support the claim being made, but by my reading they do support the article content (tho more about oligarchy in general than plutarchy specifically). If there are claims that are not supported, say what they are (in the discussion section below) so we can check them out. Joja  lozzo  00:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaning against As I understand it the study concludes the US system is an oligarchy, not necessarily a plutocracy. I think it requires some synthesis to narrow the results to fit this article.

BTW: a properly framed RFC question should be neutral and would not contain the phrase "which contains substantial material about the United States being a Plutocracy." Joja lozzo  00:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Include but briefly. Since some sources use the word 'plutocracy' when discussing the study, a brief discussion of the study is proper. Also, people in the 'we are the 99%' movement and other social critics have been using the term plutocracy about the US for years (e.g. ). Darx9url (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion section
Most if not all of the secondary sources that reviewed the Princeton study state that the study shows USA has become an oligarchy. This is not the same as saying the USA has become a plutarchy but the article content supported by the sources doesn't make that claim. In my view the article content is properly sourced but belongs in the Oligarchy article, with minor mention of it here. Joja lozzo  00:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Princeton study should be added as a further reading item, nothing more. Leaving it in as a reference only invites WP:SYNTH, as we have already seen. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The lead of the Oligarchy article states, " Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which the exact term is plutocracy ", which is cited from Winters. The quote used from the Princeton study also cites Winters, and directly with respect to government policy related to protecting wealth.
 * Moreover, the lead of this article states, "The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion". What Winters and Gilens/Page describe are the exercise of influence in an oligarchic manner by the wealthy or through means of wealth.
 * A quick google search turned up a couple of uses of plutarchy, etc., in reviews of the study, which was only recently made available online, if I'm not mistaken

-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The plutocratic power of America’s “economic elite” is strongly implied by the macro-snapshot of the Gilens-Page study. But it is wholly evident in an actual outcome of an actual policy with huge implications for actual plutocrats — the so-called Dodd-Frank financial reform.
 * 2) Don’t call America a democracy, call it a plutocracy "Gilens and Page refer to the ruling class as “economic elites,” which means a more correct term to characterize the current U.S. government is plutocracy ."
 * 3) Even though our Constitution laid the plans for a democracy, by fiat we now have a plutarchy (plutocratic oligarchy).
 * I just noticed this brief discussion by Krugman Class, Oligarchy, and the Limits of Cynicism, in which he notes"'So it’s worth pointing out it does make a difference. Yes, Democrats pay a lot of attention to plutocrats...'"-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you got the right link? – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just replaced it.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. But what is the point? I think a Democrat is in the White House, so is he a plutocrat and does that make the US a plutocracy? Or, from an editing standpoint, how does or can Krugman's comment help the article? – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the first point is that the Gilens/Page article is being reviewed in RS with respect to "plutocrats" (supporting its inclusion). I think that the reference to democrats paying attention to plutocrats does not mean that Obama is a plutocrat, because his administration has fought the campaign finance cases, etc. Krugman is being cautious about calling the US an outright "oligarchy" because the electoral process still works, thus he is cautioning against being overly cynical."'But there is a danger here of going too far, and imagining that electoral politics is irrelevant. Why bother getting involved in campaigns, when the oligarchy rules whichever party is in power?'" He states that the paper deserves all the attention it is getting, too.
 * It has to be recalled that the term plutocracy wasn't invented until the 17th century, and is almost always used in a critical manner in public discourse as opposed to an affirmative name.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We are still stuck with how to use Krugman in the article. Since he does not say "the US is a plutocracy", he does not help much. And it is SYN to say "A: Gilens & Page wrote about oligarchy." "B: Krugman used the word 'plutocrats' when talking about how the White House wanted billionaires to be more charitable with their money, and Krugman was thinking about Gilens & Page." therefore, "C we can combine the two RS to imply that the US is a plutocracy." – S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment by the bot. The USA has unequivocally become an oligarchy. Saez et. al. made an adequate case for that already. Plutocracy is more difficult to justify (even though I personally believe it is true). At a minimum, I concur with Joja's suggestion. Krugman and others seem willing to label the USA as an oligarchy, and there are sufficient NPOV sources to support the claim that the electoral process no longer works, i.e. that the laws and policy in the USA do NOT represent the will of 80 to 90% of the citizens. Corporate personhood is a separate issue; I'd be careful about that, as corporate personhood is not antithetical to democracy (in contrast to what we have now). An oligarchy isn't quite the same as a plutocracy. Both words have pejorative connotations in the U.S.A., given our electoral process, and the stare decisis evolution of Constitutional law in the 20th century. Last thought:  S. Rich said, " I think a Democrat is in the White House, so is he a plutocrat and does that make the US a plutocracy? Or, from an editing standpoint, how does or can Krugman's comment help the article?" Agreed, regarding Krugman's comment being an awkward fit in the article; however, Obama's political party, as a Democrat, is not mutually exclusive with being a plutocrat. --FeralOink (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Tribune magazine source
This is not a dead link, so don't make a false claim in order to delete RS material because you don't like it. If you want to dispute the source, follow WP:BRD and discuss that here.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the link, you get a page headed "Not Found" which gives articles from July and August 2014. The article to which the link is intended to refer is from 2009. Hence it is a dead link. Ehrenkater (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, your right that when you clik on that link from here a blank page shows up, but when you google the article title, the article appears under that link. Moreover, if you copy the link into the browser, it works. I've experimentally tried posting another link and clicking on that link, and it worked for me. Does it not work for you? -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't actually posted any new link in the article.Ehrenkater (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Click on the highlight text that says "another link".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote by Noam Chomsky on United States
There is one here (both in the video and in text): http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/8/8/noam_chomsky_what_israel_is_doing. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing quote
Note 33 refers to a missing quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.17.153 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph removed.
I've removed a paragraph, as the sources refer to oligarchy, not plutocracy; some deny that they refer to either.

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%. 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. A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University), which was released in April 2014, stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." 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 with respect to the US.

No justification has been previously presented on this talk page to claim that they are referring to "plutocracy". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is quite possibly the most absurd statement ever written on Wikipedia. Plutocracy is a form of oligarchy, in this particular instance, the rule by a wealthy elite. Are you having trouble understanding what you are reading? If you are actually making the extraordinary claim that these sources are not discussing rule by a wealthy oligarchy (plutocracy), then pray tell, what do you claim they are discussing?  In other words, how does a plutocracy differ from a wealthy oligarchy?  Hint: an oligarchy run by the rich is a plutocracy. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources do not even imply "wealthy elite"; they imply "elite". Those which even imply "wealthy" imply economic control, rather than political control.  There has been no source presented which implies US politics is controlled by the wealthy.  (Actually, I can't say that.  There has been no source with quotes presented which imply US politics is controlled by the wealthy.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, all of the sources on this topic specifically discuss rule by a wealthy elite oligarchy. They do not discuss rule by an oligarchy of starving artists, struggling craft beer makers, or an oligarchy of minimum wage earners. All of the sources are about an oligarchy of rich people. And contrary to what you claim, all of he sources in question point to or specifically discuss the uncontested fact that U.S. politics is run by and controlled by the wealthy, and I just gave you an additional source up above.  So please point to a specific source that you removed that supports what you are saying.  All of these sources discuss plutocracy—oligarchy by the wealthy. For you to claim otherwise is demonstrably false. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read all the sources. The sources which I have read, and the quotes presented on this talk page, do not support your assertions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? You asserted that the content wasn't supported by the sources and you deleted it from the article. When you were corrected, you claim that you haven't read the sources and that the assertions aren't supported.  It isn't possible to have a rational discussion with an irrational editor. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) :Among the 4 sources here, something relevant can be said for [1], but not the sentence here. Tf you will stop trying to support the unsupporable rest of the paragraph, I'll work on it.  The sentence attributed to source [2] has no indication that it belongs in the article.  Similarly, "majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts" requires a reference for relevance, especially since [3] is quoted as saying it's not talking about "plutocracy" or "oligarchy".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I apparently left [1] in the article; we shouldn't be discussing it here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This material was, I believe, the subject of extended discussion in the past, I have re-instated while discussion is ongoing. I endorse Viriditas's argument that oligarchy defined by wealth or economic power, IS plutocracy. Pincrete (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that oligarchy defined by wealth (but not economic power) is plutocracy. However, the sources have not been quoted as saying that the oligarchy is defined by wealth.  One says "a wealthy elite", from which one cannot even infer that it is defined by wealth.  Others say (something like) "wealthy individuals, and interest groups", later specifically including labor unions in "interest groups".  We need to re-include the irrelevant tag if the (IMO) clearly irrelevant material is included.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article defines pluocracy as "a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens", how can 'a wealthy elite' NOT be synonymous? Are we to infer that 'wealthy' is an incidental adjective, rather than the one that the writer chose to define the group? I would need to look again at the "wealthy individuals, and interest groups" to voice an opinion, but my recollection of previous discussions was that 'unions' was a separate point. Pincrete (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A "wealthy elite" might be a particular elite whose members are (mostly) wealthy, such as old money; not wealthy people in general. A society ruled by old money seems to meet the definition of oligarchy, but not plutocracy.
 * If am article were to say "the wealthy elite", and not confuse the matter with "interest groups", that would be re;evamt/ — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but saying that a 'wealthy elite' might be mostly wealthy people makes as much sense as saying that a group of men might include some women. Yes it might, but only if the person saying it is careless, or thinks their presence insignificant. It is reasonable to assume if an elite is 'mostly' wealthy, the writer would be careful enough to say so. There is nothing in pluotocracy that either requires, or precludes the money being 'old', though yes, if heredity is more defining than wealth, it would be a hereditary oligarchy, but again, why would the writer not say 'hereditary elite', if they consider that the defining characteristic? Perhaps I misunderstand, but there is nothing that says 'the wealthy in general' rule. The term is pejorative, therefore not susceptible to precise definition, but the equation is not so much that wealth automatically confers political power, rather that wealth is able to purchase, and is substantially a prerequisite of such power (the politically powerful are necessarily wealthy, but the wealthy are not necessarily politically powerful). Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We cannot infer what an author refuses to say. A wealthy elite could be an "elite" which contains wealthy members, not necessarily an elite where the criterion for membership is being ealthy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that the author 'refused' to say anything. Merely that if the author did not mean that the 'wealthy elite', were 'wealthy', s/he would have said so. The principal defining character of a 'male elite', is clearly their 'male-ness', are you asking that the source should have said 'an elite entirely composed of the wealthy'? It is anyway not a requirement of plutocracy that everyone with political power be wealthy, merely that wealth be (seen as?) a defining characteristic of those who DO have power. Pincrete (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the sources used specifically said he was not talking abut plutocracy or oligarchy, but I digress. But I think the definition we should be looking for is that wealth be (seen as) the defining characteristic of the small group who have political power.
 * It may be that some of the sources say that -- but none of [2] through [4] have been quoted as saying that.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. What I meant to say is that, except for the first sentence, which I agree should be there, whether or not accurate, the rest of what is written here does not fit in the article, as those statements do not support the idea that the US resembles a plutocracy.   The sources might support some statements which would be relevant to this article; what I'm saying is that these statements, whether or not in the sources, do not belong in this article.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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." -- that's cool, but it is not directly related to plutocracy. Hellerick (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC) This is acutally not current anymore.--Edward Zeiss (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Billionaires in the USA have much more political influence than Super rich people in Russia.--Edward Walton (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Questionable. What is for sure is that the ones who have very little political influence in Russia are the common Russian people. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Plutocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2009/02/labour-runs-in-city-of-london-poll-against-%E2%80%98get-rich%E2%80%99-bankers//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Modern politics
In modern days politics a form of plutocracy is an oligarchy made of oligarchs a “government by the few”, a group of happy few, rich and influential apparatchik, close to government, able to dominate people with special privileged powers such as spying and lobbying. A blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization (such as a corporation or political party) a movie studio apparatchik or a public relations activist, a lobby or a pressure group and influencer such as the Jewish lobby. A mullah or a prince with ideological or cash power. A christian democrat activist, a racial group sometimes working for a pro black group or white supremacist groups, all form modern days pressure groups. In other words a minority trying to dominate a majority of the people.

"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.[45][46] Plutocracy replaced democracy and capitalism as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War.[46][47] For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews". "

This Sentence implies that people how argue that "western democratic states" are plutocratic are not scientist but propagandist. This is a very problematic point of view, because scientist too, says that states like the USA are plutokratic. Branko Milanovic (Global Inequality) for example writes this about the USA. Martin Gilens talks abbout plutocracy too.

--5.89.99.191 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Unlike systems such as .....
User:OgamD218, you recently (7th October) altered content - the changes have been challenged, by me. WP:BRD the onus is on YOU to justify your changes not on me to defend the pre-existing text, but you simply edit war your own favoured version without reference to the objections.
 * I did reference your objections, you just don't seem to be paying attention. OgamD218 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The sentence begins "Unlike systems such as … … ", therefore your most recent objection "also socialism is an economic system not a political philo(sophy) is especially silly. The sentence does not claim that socialism is a political philosophy- although the linked WP article DOES - it is certainly a political system and it certainly has attached political philosophical ideas. Neither communism, nor socialism of course are 'monolithic' politically, economically, nor in terms of underlyimg philosophy, they are both 'broad concepts'.


 * The exact wording of the sentence is "unlike systems such as.......plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy." So yes, the entire point of the sentence in fact is to list political philosophies that go hand in hand with the named systems. Idk why you thought this could go unnoticed. Socialists can form political systems but socialism is not in and of itself a political system as it is based in economics and social ideals, socialists are not defined by a desire to end liberal democracy or give poor people greater voting rights however. Comparing communism and socialism as comparatively broad concepts is absurd. The differences between applied Communist systems borderline on semantics, in contrast, socialism has included both the Nazis and activists such as Eugene Debbs in the same generation. OgamD218 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

My objection to fascism is that -apart from Fascist Italy and Axis powers - no state has self-described as 'fascist', nor been described by outsiders as such except as a pejorative. It therefore ISN'T primarily a political sysyem at all, except very limited use historically. Therefore the question as to whether fscism had or didn't have a political philosophy is fairly academic - it's a pejorative, not am objective description of a system.


 * Once again I did address this, but I will again in greater detail. You really are not displaying a high knowledge of the subject matter. There has never been a self described Plutocracy, it is a term used exclusively as a pejorative as is covered in the article. Further, since you keep re-adding it after I delete it-please tell me about all of the officially Anarchist states that have existed since the mid 1940s (or even prior to), also anarchy is regularly used as a pejorative so why don't you give me an objective description of what an anarchist system is......

It seems, you're forcing your own personal perspective (though maybe not opinion) into the facts of this debate, that fascism had a political philosophy has never been disputed, the fact that the fascist systems of the past left behind the record that they did is why the term is so often used as a pejorative, it does not mean that fascism is not a system. Also, by the way, fascist states existed long after Italy. Fascist regimes existed in multiple Latin American countries long after WWII was over, even in Europe fascist governments prevailed in both Spain and Portugal well into the 1970s. The Baathist parties in the Middle East, which is still in power in Syria right now were created as fascist parties decades ago ("Baathist" = "fascist"). Yes obviously all of these distanced themselves from the root word after WWII but that does not mean they weren't nor that the term only has pejorative. OgamD218 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your changes, since, as I say, the onus is on you to justify your changes, not on 'watchers' to oppose them. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you really just refer to yourself as a 'watcher"............... OgamD218 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * OgamD218, it isn't usual to insert your responses into another editor's comments, if only because it becomes impossible for anyone joining to follow the discussion or to know how the original discussion 'flowed'.


 * I take it that you were not serious in describing Nazis as 'socialist' in anything but name - a name caused by them inheriting a political movement rooted as a 'workers party'. Nazism is about as socialist as DDR or N. Korea are 'democratic'. Yes I'm a 'watcher' in the sense of someone who wrote little of, but who 'watches' this article as it is inclined to get PoV insertions from time to time (everyone wants to include their least favourite country - usually their own - as a plutocracy).


 * I would actually say that the main point of the disputed sentence is to say that plutocracy has NO theoretical, ideological, moral or philosophical basis whatsoever. The contrast merely makes that point, but obviously it should make it as clearly as possible. I don't claim to know much about anarchism beyond knowing that it DOES tend to have a lot of theoretical baggage and isn't mainly a pejorative term. The others also, fascism may HAVE HAD such theoretical justification in its 'day', but is rarely used as a serious political system these days and almost exclusively as an insulting 'label'.


 * I cannot see how you can make such sharp distinctions, such as between communism and socialism. There are multiple uses of both words, from the most hardline doctrinaire version of each through to (in the case of socialism) european style social democracy with some state control and ownership/guardianship of industry. It has theoretical philosophic roots, even if they are not as sharply delineated as those of the various schools of communism.


 * You also removed pre-revolutionary France from the named plutocratic countries. I've no idea whether France at that time is generally held to be 'plutocratic', therefore I disn't revert, but your edit reason is odd - namely that France was an aristocracy. I find it strange that you think that a country cannot be both - in which the power/wealth holders are hereditary. Just as a country can be ostensibly democratic, or ostensibly communist (PRC?), but actually governed by a rich elite. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I will attempt to keep this all in one place unlike last time. I certainly agree that there exists tremendous variety within Socialism which was kind of the point I was trying, maybe struggling to make. The wide variety is why I deleted socialism and replaced it with fascism since one really can't say that socialism is part of a clearly set political philosophy. In stark contrast, fascism as an actual system has set boundaries, such as the state takes priority over the individual, nationalism is also promoted in a fascist system and open dissent is not tolerated. I'm not sure what you mean with your note re the National Socialist Party not being Socialist. The Nazis do not match what we in the 21st century would consider to be socialist because socialist almost always fall on the Left-Wing of modern western politics. Such was not always the case and I hope you don't actually believe that the Nazis went around calling themselves Socialists for the heck of it. Nazism was undoubtedly a Far-Right political philosophy but since socialism does not belong to any set political philosophy, its economic tenants, whereby a centralized state is expected to ensure the ensure the economic stability of the citizens, could be co-opted by any movement. Though the market is notably freer than say under communism, actual Capitalism is incompatible with Fascism as it allows specific individuals to prosper whether or not they conform to statist policy. In fact, Nazi rhetoric criticized capitalism as sinister, proven by the prosperity of Jews within capitalist systems. Since the Nazis are not the focal point here, I think we should move on however. It seems we actually are in agreement that socialism and according to you communism don't actually have set political philosophy's. I disagree on the later since Communist states have always been totalitarian in governance and insistent that virtually all industrial and commercial enterprise/wealth be nationalized. To be clear, that communism and socialism are inherently separate is a foundational tenet of communism as laid out in the communist manifesto. I removed the reference to Pre-Revolutionary France because a Plutocracy is inherently different from an aristocracy and if that difference is not recognized then there would be no point to inventing the term Plutocracy. Pre-Revolutionary France, as an aristocracy meant it was governed by "the best" or citizens descended from the most favored blood lines. Though aristocrats are quite often very wealthy, that was not always the case, many aristocrats only appeared wealthy or maintained financial security through hereditary holdings, a few were even impoverished. European aristocrats from the time period are noted for lacking in "cash on hand" however. Regardless of wealth, as a member of the aristocracy one was entitled to the political power and privileges assigned to the aristocracy by French law. A great number of wealthy an upper middle class Frenchmen were not part of the aristocracy. However this did not change the fact that they had only the power of the French Third Estate or peasantry. In a Plutocracy, these wealthy individuals would've governed alongside the French Nobles (excluding those nobles who were not wealthy). A plutocracy ties political power intrinsically to the wealthy few, an aristocracy ties political power intrinsically to birth status of an elite few. Indeed it is considered that both the French Revolution's success and ultimate downfall was due to the alliance of impoverished and wealthy "peasants". I am honestly failing to see where we are in such disagreement that you would not concede that while yes fascism has largely disappeared as an applied system, the other terms present, such as anarchism never even existed as an applied system. This is meant to be an encyclopedic article and as such the encyclopedic definition of fascism, which is very much a clear political philosophy, should be the controlling definition and not the subjective pejorative. OgamD218 (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this brief, I was responding to your remark about the Nazis "socialism has included both the Nazis and activists such as Eugene Debbs in the same generation" - which implies that you think that Nazis were (in any meaningful sense) 'socialist'. They weren't, and no-one thinks they were any more than anybody thinks N Korea is 'democratic'. Me calling myself beautiful does not make me so. Such names are often partly historical accidents, partly 'marketing'.


 * I don't agree with much of your detail, and nor do linked WP articles, but that isn't really the main point IMO. This article isn't about political systems, nor about which of those systems have philosophical or other intellectual/theoretical/moral 'underpinning', it's about plutocracy, which lacks any theoretical/moral etc logic of any kind - plutocracy simply 'happens' as a result of political power aggregating around those who already have economic power. I don't know how best to phrase this in the context of the article.


 * One detail which we are both ignoring is that the lead is supposedly a summary of the body of the article. Therefore if the issue of 'difference from … X, Y, Z-ism', isn't in the body, it has no place in the lead. Perhaps we should just forget the specific examples, do they really say anything about plutocracy? Pincrete (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed the Freeland bit
Freeland's quote adds nothing to the article and would only make sense as an example of political perfidy. Rails against the "plutocrats" who finance her, and freezes the bank accounts of working class protestors: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-protests-frozen-bank-accounts-1.6355396 202.27.212.48 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * not seeing a legitimate reason to remove other than a personal view that it's somehow inappropriate. That's not really sufficient justification for content deletion, it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT Acousmana 13:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)