Despotism vs Oligarchy vs Plutocracy, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 5-10-2008 @ 03:37 PM by schrodingers dog
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.

Despotism

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.

Oligarchy

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.

Plutocracy

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

Do you have another definition?


reply posted on 5-10-2008 @ 05:08 PM by schrodingers dog
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.



reply posted on 5-10-2008 @ 06:32 PM by schrodingers dog
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.


reply posted on 5-10-2008 @ 08:50 PM by schrodingers dog
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



reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 02:46 PM by schrodingers dog
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

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.



reply posted on 28-12-2009 @ 04:26 AM by harlinskee
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.


reply posted on 10-1-2010 @ 05:19 AM by harlinskee
reply to post by zenser


we do know who rules officially
so therefore no
operative word being officially here
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism
  Posted 11 days ago with 78 member flags
Hippy Do-Gooders have Destroyed the World
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags
Facts About Socialism
  Posted 4 days ago with 23 member flags
Are Liberals REALLY More Intelligent Than Conservatives?
  Posted 8 days ago with 18 member flags
Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Posted 1 days ago with 16 member flags
The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread
  Posted 12 days ago with 8 member flags
Unpopular Opinions: Say NO to Human Rights
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
This is what needs to happen: REVOLUTION!
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags