It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Despotism vs Oligarchy vs Plutocracy

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:37 PM
Many have argued that for the last eight years the White House has been defined by its autocratic nature. Basically stripping power from the other "checks and balances" institutions and increasing the power and influence of the executive branch.

Difficult to semantically pinpoint the exact form of government we currently have.
Here are three possible definitions:

Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where a single individual, the Despot, wields all the power and authority embodying the state and everyone else is a subsidiary person.


Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military powers or occult spiritual hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον olígon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children were heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. This type of power by its very nature may not be exercised openly; the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means.


Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. In a plutocracy, 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.


Would any of these define our "true" current state?

Do you have another definition?

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:07 PM
A despotic plutocrat oligarchy? No, I'm not kidding!

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by HERACAT

Covering all the bases I see.
I'm going with "oligarchy".
It seems like there is small group of families who dwell n the shadows and manage the direction of this country.
But all three definitions could apply.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:23 PM
It's got to be an ogliarchic plutocracy really hasn't it?

All the families huddled together plotting things - what do they all have in common?


Good to see that even though a certain someone may have been mentored and trained for his eventual role as president, he's still a gibbering idiot most of the time!

Some things just weren;t ever meant to be, eh?

Nice thread, SD



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:24 PM
ah..... I'm going to go with Plutocrasy, with latent kleptocratic tendancies. I don't see that having a high probability of changing. Still, it's a case of "could be worse" and while that's true, I fear it's an effective panacea for the masses. "Needs to be better" and "capable of being much better" is a far loftier mantra. Of course, it doesn't roll off the tongue as smoothly .

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by argentus

Now that I think of it, over the last eight years we also have some "theocratic" elements creeping in as well.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:55 PM
It urks me a little bit when I hear, "Hey, this is America, all you gotta do is work hard, it's a place where anyone can be rich!"

And it's just not true. The US has less economic and social mobility than most developed countries.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:24 PM
I have to go with Oligarchy. The Bush family has owned this country for so long they may as well be despots, but Oligarchy just seems to be a better fit.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by mrwupy]

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 08:50 PM
Oooooooo, I found a goodie to incorporate into our conversation:

Crony Capitalism

Crony capitalism in practice

In its lightest form, crony capitalism consists of collusion among market players. While perhaps lightly competing against each other, they will present a unified front to the government in requesting subsidies or aid (sometimed called a trade association or industry trade group). Newcomers to a market may find it difficult to find loans or acquire shelf space to sell their product; in technological fields, they may be accused of infringing on patents that the established competitors never invoke against each other. Distribution networks will refuse to aid the entrant. That said, there will still be competitors who "crack" the system when the legal barriers are light, especially where the old guard has become inefficient and is failing to meet the needs of the market. Of course, some of these upstarts may then join with the established networks to help deter any other new competitors

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:46 PM
I love investigating these definitions.

Many have suggested recently that we should rise up and reclaim our government from the politicians in Washington.

May I suggest this method:


Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities. In English, the word mobocracy is sometimes used as a synonym. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it's akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the easily moveable crowd," from which the term "mob" originally derives.

As a term in civics it implies that there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly-accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force − might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision. It is often associated with demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by HERACAT

But all three definitions could apply.

i agree absolutely
*flags thread*
we're currently studying American Politics in A2 &
ive been pondering about the plutocracy aspect for a while, i'll post why in a bit.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:08 PM
It is none of these.


Rule by an unknown person or persons.

Any additional label is purely speculative as to the identity or intent or the cryptarch.

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by zenser

we do know who rules officially
so therefore no
operative word being officially here

new topics

top topics


log in