Jump to content

Talk:Plutocracy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Positive influence of bribes!?!?!

What exactly does this sentence mean? "Positive influence [of plutocrats] includes campaign contributions and bribes;" I don't think most people would consider bribes a positive influence on government.

unsigned post from 2007Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Carthage anyone?

Isn't Carthage run by a senate of rich merchants? Tourskin (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Negative connotation

The fact corporations have an economical and social impact by trying to influence (bribe) the (political) elite or large groups of populations, through manipulation, is a fact adhered to by many (academic) people. There are historical precedents which could fuel the aforementioned point if one considers the action class suits directed at multinationals and/or their CEO's and/or shareholders/owners.

If one considers a tyrany to be an example of plutocracy (And nepotism) in its extreme form, one could consider Sadam Hussein (Iraq), Ferdinand Marcos (Philipines) or Idi Amin Dada (Uganda) as recent, documented, examples.

The point of contention seems to be whether political, judicial and sociological systems have objective criteria defining actions as being "fundamentaly plutocratic" or not. Although some actions by individuals or corporations can be classified as morally objectionable due to their (negative, deconstructive) impact on the social fabric of a certain society, this is largely a question of historical and cultural point of view. Morality as such is often taken as basis for legal or political argument, but this is not a strictly defined matter and only held as such through consensus or historical fact. From that point of view the pejorative connotation attached to "plutocratic" is subject to debate.

If one considers the convictions of (wealthy) people and companies for bribery or otherwise exerted (negative) influence on a society, there is some basis to define "plutocracy" as detrimental for social fabric on a general level and individuals in specific cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VincentJS (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple voting

"For instance, a factory owner could have 2000 votes, while a worker would only have one. " This is absolute nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.227.203 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that that entire paragrahp makes reference to only two sources, one of which is inactive, and the other refers to Swedish political history, which does not mention the vote disparity, and does not discuss the line about voting in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.49.200 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Superclass

I can see, loosely, how the first definition of superclass might be relevant, although we don't have any sources which suggest that the ruling class are actually rich. The list and the book are clearly not relevant to this article, except in that they represent examples of the of that first definition of superclass. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Superclass are Transnational capitalist class Billionaires, not necessarily "ruling class" as in politicians, but "Super" because they are seen as above the the "ruling class". Transnational Capitalists do not necessarily need or even desire Democracy. See State Capitalism. 99.54.141.3 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If that were a used definition, if they were powerful because they were rich,and if we were to create an article on that subject, it would be relevant to this article. None of the present disambiguations at superclass fit your definition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Your's is one voice, but is it in the wilderness? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Corporate welfare to compensate for the Economic efficiency of State Capitalism, from Fascist Italy and fruition in examples such as the PRC? 99.155.147.79 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean anything to anyone else. It doesn't mean anything to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Benito Mussolini admired by Fred C. Koch ... Post-Left–right politics, new Extremism versus new Centrism (Paul Collier) of Civilization Ecosystem Services support. 99.54.137.200 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this a comparison between Platonic idealism and Platonic realism? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds more like Platonic epistemology Truthiness. 99.29.187.34 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Emotions? 99.190.90.68 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Talking to yourself, again? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Plutarchy

I double bracketed plutarchy in the intro, and then, the next morning, clicked it and found a loop closed by a redirect. I have not encountered plutarchy until now, and always assumed that aristocracy and oligarchy are synonymous--not so. In fact, oligarchs tend to be middle-class and can be lower-class; many have emerged from poverty.

I now think the distinction is crucial to understanding society, and that the only context to discuss it is in the little-known category of plutarchy. So, I am suggesting that a development page be built on an other WM project site (as it may include original research), and that the plutarchy redirect be replaced with a plutarchy stub so that relationship between oligarchy and aristocracy can be described in its proper context.--John Bessa (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Plutarchy thoughts: Aristocracy describes families that have done so well that they can distinguish themselves as a distinct culture from the base. Oligarchy is a thought process (called, or misnamed, philosophy) that benefits aristocracy. In the beginning... there was Athens and Sparta, Athens being democratic and Sparta being aristocratic. Some Athenians who created a school called the Lyceum, supported the Sparta, and developed a planning guide for such structures that historians tell us is the basis of Western Civilization. (Asian civilization developed with the help of similar guides that were also categorized as philosophy.)
The philosophic struggle between Athens and Sparta, or between democracy and oligarchy, centered on the extravert/introvert pole found in the relatively recent Myers-Briggs personality test. The oligarchs won the war of words to establish the Western Civilization that has continually sided with aristocrats as property holders and dominant politicians, such as with the Scottish Clearances and the Bush family in the US. They initiated the modernism that continued through the Roman Church to the atheistic Age of Reason. Despite this, democracy survives as the political system of the vast majority of nations, and was relatively recently used by aristocrats in their defenses against communism: we are the leaders of the "free world" against the purest of oligarchs, the Soviets whose "apparatus" had cleansed its oligarchy of the inefficient aristocrats (aristocrats should take note).
Extravert/introvert is psychological, and if this is the philosophical divider, than oligarchs are psychologically distinct. If we follow this dichotomy, we find ourselves in the area of personality traits and disorders. Some of these traits/disorders describe the introversion argued by many early philosophers, and extraversion describes behaviors of many of the wealthy and powerful, with average people being presumably normal.
This line of thought requires entrenchment in the roots of Western Civilization; test comparisons with other civilizations, such as Asian, can confirm if the process is phenomena, natural or counter-evolutionary.--John Bessa (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV - Modern political section

It appears that the "Modern political" section not only has a few weasel words, but also trails off topic. It should be looked at further and cleaned up a bit from someone with a little better understanding of the topic. Hackajar (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I enjoy eggs (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Only a few weasel words? I don't see how a comment by a political hack should be used to support use of the term, and it strays quite a bit into the subject of Clean Elections (which is a little more balanced). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Should "As a propaganda term" be discussed before deleted in whole?

Should "As a propaganda term" be discussed before deleted in whole?

As a propaganda term

In the political jargon and propaganda of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, western democratic states were constantly referred to as "plutocracies", with the underlying assumption being that a small number of extremely wealthy individuals were controlling the countries and holding them in ransom.[1] "Plutocracy" replaced "democracy" and "capitalism" as the principal fascist term for the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War.[1] For the Nazis, the term was often a code word for "the Jews".[1]

99.181.155.158 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the same as the "Modern politics" section; it is propaganda, rather than even potentially descriptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that section a simple logical analysis of how our plutocracy works? The conclusion that money controls our government is self evident. The paragraph simply explains how that can be the case in what was established to be a government by, of, and for the people rather than a plutocracy. How is that propaganda? Carl Hitchon (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(Redirected from Plutonomy)!?

quote
Plutocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Plutonomy)
end quote

USA resource

From the January/February 2011 issue of The American Interest: Left Out by Francis Fukuyama, exceprt ...

The answer to the question “Is America a plutocracy?” might seem either trivial or obvious depending on how one defines the term.

99.181.131.214 (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would this removed section be better in a United States specific section?

In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts ostensibly seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions; these reforms are often called clean money or clean election reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not address the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources. In 2010, Justice Stevens along with Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor view Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as having drastically weakened efforts to restrain the effect of money in government. In his dissenting remarks Justice Stevens states:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

Critics of clean elections point out that it allows the sitting government to decide which candidates would qualify to receive tax dollars - and therefore influence who would be allowed to win - thus solving one problem by creating another problem; These laws have increasingly run into constitutional problems in the Courts. Substantial portions of the Vermont (see Randall v. Sorrell), Connecticut,[2] and Arizona[3] systems were found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

108.195.138.200 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It actually sounds entirely inappropriate for this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

After-Crisis Revision, adding countries to the list

Continuing the discussion... isn't the current crisis situation an example of how we live in a plutocracy? I mean in Europe the new President/PM of Greece (Lucas Papademos) and Italy (Mario Monti) have NOT been elected and have been appointed merely to appease the Banks and the Economic powers. The euphemism is "technocratic government".

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.11.58 (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

POV neutrality

The first paragraph of this article ends with "The United Kingodom could be seen as a plutocracy." Other than the obvious misspelling of kingdom, I would think that several countries could be seen as a plutocracy, especially when considering oligarchies. I believe the whole sentence should be removed.

-ABell

What's with the "I postulate..." in the last paragraph? Can someone with a full account look into this? I just happenned to be hopping by and noticed that, which throws the whole article into a neutrality type question.

-JHolmes


I also found that the last section, "Plutocracy-Forms of Control", to be of questionable neutrality. The rest of the article seemed fine to me.

-PAllec

@PAllex: Can you please site the particular sentence you are referring to and explain why? Dwdallam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Someone needs to flag this for POV because of that whole capitalism bashing at the end. Either that or make it a separate section that clearly states it is opinion. -CCameron @CCameron Same thing here. Please cite the exact verbiage you are concerned with.


The last few paragraphs under "Forms of Control" sound like a statement of opinion, not an encyclopedia entry. The last paragraph even begins with "I postulate..." . Wikipedia is not a place to postulate. Even though I agree with almost all this writer's statements, they don't belong on this page. I'll try to eliminate the political punditry and reword it to something more neutral.

Noclevername 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm politically conservative, and I don't see how the "Forms of Control" section is anti-capitalist. All it's saying is that in a capitalistic system most of the control of the economy is in the hands of those with the most money, and in a free-market system of election spending there is a lot of money influence in how elections go. You can be extremely pro-capitalist and admit that. I do think the use of "undue" in the previous section counted as POV, but I just changed that. As far as I'm concerned, this is a fairly neutral article. There are some strange uses of comments in the "Forms of Control" section, and it needs some consistency as to whether 'plutocracy' should be capitalized, but those aren't really POV issues but more just a need for cleaning up the style of the article. Parableman 20:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC) --Did someone remove the Forms of Control section? I'd like to reinstate that so I can at least read it. It sound like an important section. Dwdallam (talk)

In every society which has had a wealthy minority throughout human history, that minority has used its wealth to exert influence over the political arena. Were we to define such a society as a "plutocracy", there would be few that could be classified as anything else. The "influence of the rich" argument effectively eliminates Aristotle's definition of plutocracy as an actual form of government. Calbeck (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a new editor so I was wondering if the "external link" is a valid source? i.e http://progressiveliving.org/plutocracy_defined.htm I would be tempted to remove the "External Links" section, if there are no objections? And the whole article needs references. I'd be interested in finding some but I'd like some suggestions first. --AWZ (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a also new editor so I was wondering if my domain http://www.plutocracycaust.com is valid enough to get into the "external link" section to let people get the relation to other disasters shown in massmedia. --User talk:Phsycho (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While there is an inherent bias in any sources cited for this article (since almost no sources exist in which 'plutocracy' is not used pejoratively), it is still possible to cite sources that consider the subject academically. I removed both the previous links, replaced them with another link, and added a 'Further reading' section, which later I will add to. 97.73.64.147 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For academic levels there's a good read at http://www.plutocracycaust.com/die_physiker.html.

I really wonder for what reason the only external link was removed? Shall i try to gather some reviews of that site before i consider a link in wikipedia? 80.219.165.92 (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think before you consider something as a source, it should conform to the cannons in that area. If not, then we have an argument, and not a encyclopedic reference. Dwdallam (talk)

Second paragraph -- usage

The reference to an interview with Kevin Phillips is a good example of a modern pejorative usage. It seems a bit "lonely" as a sentence standing by itself. Not sure, if it's really a problem. --AWZ (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

--I think it could be a big problem. Who is "Kevin Phllips?" Does he represent the cannons of definition on plutocracy? If not, it's not a good reference. It could, however, go in the further reading section.

The way I'm understanding the usage of "plutocracy" in the context of this article is that it can lead to undesirable effects, and since the word means "the rule or great influence of a very small and wealthy minority to the exclusion and harm of the whole," plutocracy is in direct opposition to democracy, which this article is comparing it to. Therefore, in the context of a democratic state, a plutocracy threatens that structure, and is thus correctly seen as a negative to the existence of any democracy. That's not pejorative. It sounds like a pretty sound argument. Dwdallam (talk)

What is Plutocracy?

Outside of an ideological/utopian fantasy has there or could be a government that is not a plutocracy? -duke

(What good is a plutocracy? A goverment ran by wealth, Ok, so the leaders have wealth... Does that mean they are capable of being leaders? Whee! I win the lottery! I must be capable of running an entire country now! Can a Plutocracy even successfully exist? Does anyone have anything to say to this? -Anonymous)

can it exist? we're living in one! In JERSEY Channel Islands

I added -anonymous to your comment, because you didn't add a signature. I see what you're saying, the initial line is not very informative. "A plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth)." I did a quick reference on answers.com for the American Heritage definition:

plu·toc·ra·cy (plū-tŏk'rə-sē) n., pl. -cies. 1. Government by the wealthy. 2. A wealthy class that controls a government. 3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

I feel that the opening sentence should be changed to read "A plutocracy is a government system ruled and influenced by the wealthy (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth)." or something to that effect. Thoughts?

--BriskWiki 07:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All governments that have every existed, until the 20th Century, have been plutocracies.

Until the 20th century? Of course we virtually all live in a plutocracy, to a greater or lesser extent. This has always been the case, certainly so since the invention of money made accumulation of wealth relatively easier for those in a position to accumulate wealth. To think otherwise would be naive.

--"All" governments may have displayed plutocracy, it may be an inherent temptation, but I argue that that's exactly why we need a better system put in place that stems the tide of that predispositon. Example: all individuals are capable of lying, cheating and stealing, so we have social rules and laws to curb those possibilities-- So we should with organized bad behavior, the kind in governments: we should set up sound systems to make plutocratic behavior illegal and/or socially unacceptable. It's as simple as that. --Also-- Something in the article I didn't like, but maybe it's that I'm not understanding it. The author states that there's two "unrelated" uses of the term plutocracy. He/she says, basically, that one is refers to the older usage when describing governments, and the other to a contemporary critism of government. My question is this--what exactly is "unrelated" about those two uses, besides the obvious fact that one is history and one is the present? To me, that's like saying my pet here would be called a dog, that's what it's been called historically, but because I'm in the here and now and this dog is alive now, not a word in a book writing about dogs that have gone before, my pet must be completely "unrelated" to "dogs" of the past and I should call him a "frig" instead!! I say you call it what it is!! My dog is a dog, and a plutocracy is a plutocracy, whether it's historic or in the here and now! I think the author of the "plutocracy" page demonstrates the common tendency lately of disregarding history when analyzing present cicumstances, and to me, that's irresponsible, fool-hardy and dangerous. History is important and relevent EXACTLY for the purposes of applying it's lessons to the present, otherwise we'd be in an endless circle, with no progress in sight (I do believe that we are in a spiral, which is kind of like a circle, but that's a different story!) Anyway, maybe I read in wrong, I don't know. What do you guys think?

Plutocracy is not a symptom affecting government, it is a definition outlining a specific FORM of government. All of the preceding arguments revolve around changing Aristotle's specific definition of plutocracy --- "rule by the rich" --- into an ill-defined "influence by the rich". A government is defined, however, by its PRIMARY source of influence, not merely one that is major or minor. Regardless of how much influence the rich may have on a democratic society, for example, they must still convince others to pull levers in voting booths on their behalf. In an actual plutocratic society, the rich themselves are the only ones who have any votes to begin with. Calbeck (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Inherent bias

I am a political science student and I think this article is inherently bias and from a neo-realist ideological perspective.(thats the conservative right wing traditional perspective of international politics) Actually its sort of obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.174.193 (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As total newb to the site and this whole subject, I find the following argument confusing: Critics of so-called clean elections point out that having the government decide which candidates would receive tax dollars and therefore be allowed to run would create an effective dictatorship where (instead of private organizations) the government decides who the people can vote for. I fail to see the difference between the dictatorship run by organizations and one run by a government run by organizations. Is it just me, or could the part be worded more proficiently? Bulletprewph (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with plutocracy. Calbeck (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why NOT to merge Corporatocary and plutocracy

plutocracy reffers to rule by the rich. These 'rich' could coalesce around rigid social groups, such as the indian/hidu caste system, the roman system, etc. Or they could coalesce around military assocaition, or reace, religion, creed, etc. Corporatcoracy is certainly a type of plutocracy, but it is a much narrower concept: (indirect) rule by corporations, i.e. rich coalescing around economic entities, as opposed to social, political, or other groups and entities.

corporatocracy is a subset of plutocracy, and deserves, especially given its contemporary nature, it's own article.

Bity (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You admit that it is a subset of plutocracy, and the current state of the article is a single sentence of information. The article itself admits that the term is a neologism. To me, these are all arguments in favor of merging. If, after such a merge, the section on corporatocracy expands with relavent and verifiable content, it can always be split off again at that point. For now, I don't see much reason to believe it will expand very much. -Verdatum (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the move. Corporatocary is very distinct from Plutocracy. Would all Corporatocaries be plutocracies? I don't think that is necessarily true. Gavin (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gavin is correct. Corporatocracy is NOT a subset of plutocracy -- corporatocracy and plutocracy are intersecting sets. Each requires its own entry. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all the same. Plutocracy is rule by the rich and generalized to mean directly or indirectly. A corporatocracy is using the wealth of a corporation to drive a government and laws toward its own benefit. Corporations can be owned by a multitude of stockholders, not necessarily rich. For instance, the average pension and 401K holder has corporate stock ownership, but they are not necessarily wealthy. The CEO may be wealthy and in the driver's seat lobbying, but it isn't their own wealth they're using to lobby, it's the stockholders'. Bluntly, average Joe funds corporatocracy but has no power. In fact, average Joe in a corporatocracy is likely unknowingly funding lobbying for policies not in his best interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.51.218 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Corporatocracy is a neologism - it has not entered the mainstream English language, it is in no English language dictionary - Wikipedia policy opposes articles on neologisms. All of the material mentioned above is original research unless sources can be provided to support such claims - for those not familiar with it, original research is also opposed by Wikipedia policy. The corporatocracy article is extremely badly written - it appears that the term is a neologism that is a pejorative term. A corporation is just an organization - without people's actions to animate it, it is like a sitting bicycle that can do nothing without actions being applied. So how do the people in charge of business corporations overpower governments - according to the corporatocracy article it is because they control large amounts of wealth and use that wealth for political leverage. Plutocracy is rule by wealth - this is exactly what the article is describing - it is only focused on a single type of organization that the plutocracy is based upon. Again, corporatocracy is a neologism, Wikipedia opposes neologisms. It either should be merged into plutocracy or its title should be renamed "Corporate plutocracy".--R-41 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've renamed to "corporate plutocracy" instead of using a made-up neologism of paranoids that doesn't sound much like a real word. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Slow down. This discussion needs to continue here:
Corporatocracy happens to be the most widely used term (2,150,000 vs. 16,000). Please discuss there. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"Examples" clarification

Can someone help clarify/edit the last sentence from "Examples"? It reads:

"The only landowners are fully owned subsidiaries of Disney, and right-of-way for state and county roads, and the only residents are Disney employees."

I don't understand this sentence; does Disney alone have sole jurisdiction (i.e., 'right of way') for the creation of state and county roads? Or do only Disney employees have 'the right of way' on state and county roads? Ronsword (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Citigroup Analyst describes US and UK as Plutonomy

I recall there being a complete article on that memo, what happened? Deleted by their PR team? Or did I read it elsewhere- ethanwashere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanwashere (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NPR interview with Chrystia Freeland

I was listening to the radio on the way to work this morning and heard this interview: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/15/162799512/a-startling-gap-between-us-and-them-in-plutocrats with Chrystia Freeland for her new book "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else" which I thought might be good for the Wikipedia article here. I have no time to put it in, though. Here are some good quotes, though:

So how are the super-rich that Freeland interviewed different from the super-rich of the past — say, 1955? Well, there are many more of them, and they're a lot richer than they used to be.

"One of the things which is really astonishing is how much bigger the gap is than it was before," she says. "In the 1950s, America was relatively egalitarian, much more so than compared to now." CEOs earn exponentially more now, compared with their workers, than they did 60 years ago.

...

"You don't do this in a kind of chortling, smoking your cigar, conspiratorial thinking way," she says. "You do it by persuading yourself that what is in your own personal self-interest is in the interests of everybody else. So you persuade yourself that, actually, government services, things like spending on education, which is what created that social mobility in the first place, need to be cut so that the deficit will shrink, so that your tax bill doesn't go up.

"And what I really worry about is, there is so much money and so much power at the very top, and the gap between those people at the very top and everybody else is so great, that we are going to see social mobility choked off and society transformed."

I think a summary of those last two paragraphs would make a good addition but I don't understand the objections to what I have already added. So I guess I want to ask in advance if anyone objects to them? TraderGail (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Two problems with this article

I find the overall structure of this article odd. Currently it's:

1 Usage
1.1 Examples
1.2 Modern politics
1.3 United States
2 As a propaganda term
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading
6 External links

And I think it should more likely be something like this:

1 Etymology and definition
2 Concept
3 How the term is used
4 Examples of plutocracies
4.1 Historical
4.2 Modern
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

I might start working towards restructuring it towards that second structure, sometime over the next several weeks.

Also, I find this paragraph, from the current Usage section, confusing.

"The word is used to describe these two distinct concepts: one of a historical nature and one of a modern political nature. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples of such plutocracies include the Roman Republic, some city-states in Ancient Greece, the civilization of Carthage, the Italian city-states/merchant republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa, and pre-World War II Empire of Japan zaibatsu."

  • It's unsourced;
  • I am not sure that plutocracy does break down into two distinct concepts, historic and modern;
  • The paragraph describes the historic concept and gives some examples, but does not describe and give examples for the modern concept. (There are two modern examples later in the article, and what may be intended as a description of the modern concept, but I'm inferring that: the structure doesn't make it clear.)

I will probably delete this paragraph within a few weeks, unless someone wants to try to improve it before then. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced statement, "The word is used to describe these two distinct concepts: one of a historical nature and one of a modern political nature. The former indicates the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy." And I removed "such" in the following sentence. I think your idea for restructuring is good, but you should do it while I am being accused of several mistakes that I don't understand. TraderGail (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about Stiglitz article on top 1%

Is this source appropriate to summarize here?

Joseph E. Stiglitz (May 2011) "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" Vanity Fair: "Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate"

If it is not appropriate to summarize, is it appropriate to quote directly? TraderGail (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Plutocracy in the United States

There may be something there, but almost all the added material was about the distribution of wealth, rather than the association of wealth with power. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess not. Only the illustrations and the last two paragraphs are completely inappropriate for this article; the first two paragraphs of the section are appropriate if accurately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Average tax rate percentages for the highest-income U.S. taxpayers, 1945-2009
If "Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy" then doesn't this graph show that changes in tax laws have benefited the wealthy? Don't you have to assume that the wealthy had no hand in those law changes in order for the graph to be inappropriate for the article? My other question concerns this quotation which was quickly added and removed:


That study clearly shows that wealth is distributed in a non-democratic fashion, even according to the preferences of the far right. What possible beneficiaries are there of that non-democratic distribution, other than the rich? Therefore, it shows that the rich are benefiting politically, and not just from the value of their wealth, no? TraderGail (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't show anything. If you have to assume something for the statements to be relevant, it violates WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Where in WP:OR does it say anything like that? The graph is from Congressional Research Service, and the sentence is from a peer reviewed journal article. Neither of them are original research. You have to assume that the rich have not had a hand in obtaining the political and financial advantages those sources describe in order to say that they are not relevant to the article, and that assumption is by far more unlikely than the opposite assumption that they have, because the fact that they have is what the rest of the section is all about. But it should be easy to find a source explicitly saying that the rich in the U.S. use their power, money, and/or influence to obtain tax code and other advantages. I will look for such sources now. TraderGail (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Pineda and Rodriguez (2006) found a strong negative correlation between redistribution and the share of capital in GDP where the share is considered an indicator of income inequality. Several theories have been provided to explain the negative correlation between inequality and redistribution. Examples include political bias toward the rich (Benabou, 2000); the prospect of upward mobility by low-income agents (Benabou and Ok, 2001; Arawatari and Ono, 2009); and lobbying by rich capitalists (Rodriguez, 2004)."[1] (Benabou, R., 2000. Unequal societies: income distribution and the social contract. American Economic Review 90, 96–129. Rodriguez, F., 2004. Inequality, redistribution, and rent-seeking. Economics and Politics 16, 287–320.)

"The propensity to participate in every reported form of political activity rises with income and education. For voting itself the tendency is relatively moderate, whereas for contributing to political campaigns it is drastic. In the latter case the actual bias is still understated since the data reflects only the number of contributions, and not their amounts. It is intuitive that the wealthy should be overrepresented in money-intensive channels of political influence: such lobbying is a form of collective investment where liquidity constraints are even more likely to bind than usual. One might have expected poorer, less skilled agents to have a countervailing advantage for attending meetings, working on campaigns, writing Congress, and other time-intensive activities for which they have a lower opportunity cost. But, remarkably, the pro-wealth (financial and human) bias is here again not only positive, but extremely strong."[2]

"Mr. Perot faced inquiries in 1992 about how he had persuaded Federal, state and local officials to grant $200 million in cash and tax breaks for a cargo airport near Fort Worth in the middle of property owned by him and members of his family.... During both of his Presidential campaigns, Mr. Perot has bemoaned the influence of money in politics, but Mr. Perot has a history of generous donations to political campaigns. In at least one year, 1974, he gave more than $90,000 to Congressional candidates, making him the largest individual contributor in the country. Among the recipients were 12 members of the House Ways and Means Committee; the next year, 10 of the 12 voted for an amendment to that year's tax bill written specifically for Mr. Perot that granted his business a $15 million tax break."[3]

"As a coalition led by Apple Inc. (AAPL), Google Inc. (GOOG), and Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) presses for a tax holiday on more than $1 trillion in offshore profits, it is turning to a well-positioned lobbyist: Jeffrey Forbes, once chief of staff to Max Baucus, chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee. Data compiled by Bloomberg News show that Forbes is part of an army of more than 160 lobbyists, including at least 60 who once worked for a sitting member of the House or Senate, pushing for the repatriation holiday. Their job is to persuade Congress to establish a tax break estimated to cost the U.S. government $78.7 billion over the next decade."[4]

"International development and relief organization Oxfam America expressed extreme disappointment that the oil industry has decided to try to use the courts to keep investors and the public in the dark regarding payments to resource-rich countries. The American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group representing companies such as BP, Exxon, Chevron and Shell, filed a lawsuit against the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) yesterday to overturn a US law that will provide valuable information to investors and help prevent corrupt government officials from squandering oil and mineral wealth in resource-rich countries."[5]

"In 1909, Republican president Teddy Roosevelt argued in favor of income and inheritance taxes, as they would promote, “equality of opportunity.” The programs required a constitutional amendment, and by 1913, 88% of states agreed that it was time to tax the income of its citizens. But not all its citizens — instead the income tax burden fell solely on couples who made over $4,000 (in today’s terms, around $88,000). If you made less, you paid nothing. And the more you made, the more you paid. For the next 60 years Americans lived under a progressive tax structure. And while elites were not overjoyed to pay higher taxes than other Americans (and some sought ways to avoid them), most understood their tax burden as their civic duty.... According to Felix Frankfurter’s book Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court, Justice Holmes told a young law clerk who complained about paying them, “I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.” When John D. Rockefeller Sr. died in 1937, the estate tax was nearly 70%, yet complaints from his family would not be publicly heard. Two years earlier his son earned more than $5 million; this gave him the distinction of being the only person in America’s highest tax bracket (at a rate of 63%). No editorials were written by John Jr. to suggest class warfare, or that the rich were being unfairly singled out. Yet in the 1970s, this attitude began to change. Elites began to use their increasing political power to lower their taxes, an effort that came to fruition under Ronald Reagan. Today our elites employ what political scientist Jeffrey Winters calls “the income defense industry” to greatly reduce their taxes. These lawyers, lobbyists, and tax consultants have worked to protect the wealthy with special laws, legally move money to special places like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, and undermine progressive taxation. The results have been successful. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have shown, between 1970 and 2004 the rich cut their overall effective tax rate by more than half — from 75% to 35% — while the American average has remained at 23% (this includes individual, corporate, payroll and estate taxes). But at what cost? Inequality has increased, mobility has declined, and the American Dream is dying.... the rich who lobby against progressive taxation have replaced the civic principle of taxing on the basis of the ability to pay with the individual principle that nothing should get in their way of being as rich as possible."[6]

Are there any reasons that these sources do not establish the relevance of the graph and the sentence in question? TraderGail (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason that they do establish relevance. That information fits in the income inequality articles only. Possibly it would support one sentence, with no pictures, pointing to that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The bolded portions all are about the rich obtaining specific political, legal and tax advantages, beyond the income advantages they already have. If you can't see that then we need a third opinion. TraderGail (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Few of the sources here (above) even suggest that the advantages are initiated by the "rich", and most of what you put in the article is synthesized from the sources, rather than being readily apparent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I honestly do not understand what you are thinking. Each one of those sources talk about something initiated by the rich: "lobbying", "propensity to participate", "time-intensive activities", "gave more than $90,000 to Congressional candidates ... 10 of the 12 voted for an amendment to that year's tax bill written specifically for Mr. Perot", "job is to persuade Congress to establish a tax break", "filed a lawsuit against the" SEC, "began to use their increasing political power", "the rich who lobby against progressive taxation" ... Which of those activities are you saying were not initiated by the rich?
As for the tags in the article, let me ask you for the particulars, please, for each sentence:
1. (graph) Average tax rate percentages for the highest-income U.S. taxpayers, 1945-2009
2. A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.
3. The rich in the U.S. participate disproportionately in every form of politics, especially by donating to campaigns, attending meetings, working on campaigns, and writing Congress.
4. Such political advantages are taken by both wealthy individuals and corporations.
5. The U.S. instituted progressive taxation in 1913, but in in the 1970s, elites used their increasing political power to lower their taxes, and today sucessfully employ what political scientist Jeffrey Winters calls “the income defense industry” to greatly reduce their taxes.
(A) Which of those sentences do you think is more about "wealth inequality" than plutocracy, and why, and (B) which of them do you think are original research and why? The only one I can see at all is (A)(2), but I originally added it to show that the political preferences across the spectrum are for vastly more equality, which in turn shows de facto non-democratic political outcomes equivalent in all aspects to plutocracy. Could it be phrased better to explain that? TraderGail (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
1. is more about income inequality, than about wealth inequality or power of the wealthy.
2. is more about perceived income inequality. It implies that the non-rich do not have the power to implement the income distribution they desire, but it doesn't even imply that the rich have the power to control income distribution.
3. is marginally related, if that's a real journal (I think it is), and it the article says that (which I can't find).
4. is not; rule by wealthy corporations would not be "plutocracy", but corporatocracy.
5. is almost certainly not a reliable source. (To be reliable, both Kahn and Winters would have to be experts who have been published in reliable sources.) In addition, the relevance requires the assumption that the wealthy are also high income. It's true, but not stated in the essay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
1. Why does a change in tax rates say more about the resulting income than the power required to change them?
2. There is absolutely nothing about income inequality in that statement.
3. http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/debraj/Courses/Readings/BenabouAER.pdf page 107
4. "Corporatocracy" is not a word in any online dictionary I can find or any of my desk dictionaries. Why is that even a Wikipedia article? Are wealthy corporations not a subset of wealthy entities capable of exercising political power?
5. Are you saying that Time Magazine is not a reliable source for Wikipedia? Are you suggesting that article wasn't fact-checked or edited by Time editors?
But most importantly, you have not answered my question or supported the tags you have added: Nothing in your reply suggests that the graph or statements are original research or are more appropriate for the article on wealth inequality. TraderGail (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

George Soros

This isn't even a minor footnote. He gave money to a group that calls George W. Bush bad names. Who cares. This has no influence on government policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly the same as the arguments being used elsewhere in this talk page --- that the rich, acting to influence a political system, is the same as a plutocracy. Which it isn't, but IF we're going to use that as the mile-marker then Soros falls into the same "plutocrat" category as any other rich person who funds any political-minded organization. Calbeck (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This comment, asserting that George Soros' financial activities relating to politics have no influence on politics, demonstrates perfectly how ′political influence′ in this context is a subjective term. Many can argue exactly how much political influence Mr. Soros has, but defining Plutocracy to include not just rule by the wealthy but also the subjective term ′influence′ means that Plutocracy likewise becomes a very malleable, subjective term that shapes itself according to the biases and perspectives of the user. No surprise it is used mostly as a pejorative. While I think a separate article describing the influence of money on politics would be useful, conflating rule with influence here does nothing to clarify the meaning of this term and serves only to advance its use as a pejorative and propaganda tool. Virtually every government in history has been influenced by money and monied interests, such as today with the influence of drug money in south and central America and the influence of oil money in middle eastern nations and Russia, and throughout history including notably the role of British land owners in forcing the monarchy to accept the Magna Carta. Glen (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda Term Section

Seems a bit emaciated, to me. On the one hand, it may have simply been neglected. On the other hand, the conspiracist in me thinks the selective presentation of fascist regimes smacks of propaganda in and of itself - e.g., Reductio ad Hitlerum of anyone who might use it to legitimately criticize plutocrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the origin of the word?

What is the origin of the word?--Nixer 16:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Look on the page. 74.38.35.171 03:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I always took plutos to mean by the many, by the wealth of people, and therefore a word defining direct democracy, such as twitter democracy by referenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.205.111 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem

This in the lead is wrong. "In a plutocracy, the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low." An obvious possible system that would be plutocratic but not discribed by the above, would be a system where the rich could give all or most of their wealth to the state in exchange for a seat in the ruling counsel.70.150.94.194 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, what is it with all you so-called historian/humanitarians and you fetish with the Romans? It's some rejected-feeling desire to be Caesar and rule the world! Who cares about a stupid republic ?! The Athenians knew how to do real democracy: stopping all the work; gathering together as a single community; and deciding what to do as a collective! Not to mention their way-healthier approach to existential issues/family secrets, the three-day festival of plays where everyone's issues all came out in collective catharsis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.205.111 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the Dennis Gilbert quote

This quote, which I trimmed down from American upper class was deleted, with the edit summary "says nothing about political power":


How does "the tiny capitalist class at the top of the hierarchy have an influence on economy and society" say nothing about political power? How does "They make investment decisions that open or close employment opportunities for millions of others" say nothing about political power? How does "They contribute money to political parties" say nothing about political power? How does "they often own media enterprises that allow them influence over the thinking of other classes" say nothing about political power? This is bordering on the surreal! TraderGail (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious. The "tiny capitalist class" has economic power (perhaps) beyond that suggested by their wealth, but there is little indication of political power. The last (media) is close, but it's also clearly untrue, and not exactly political except in that they influence the political decisions of other classes. The only clearly relevant sentence is "They contribute money to political parties". If you want the quote to read:

The members of the tiny capitalist class at the top of the hierarchy have an influence on economy and society far beyond their numbers. ... They contribute money to political parties, and they often own media enterprises that allow them influence over the thinking of other classes...

I wouldn't object significantly, but that might change the meaning of the quote, and others might wonder why you would choose to lead a section with such an innocuous quote. In fact, I wonder about that, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems you are saying that making "decisions that open or close employment opportunities for millions of others" is not political power. Do you believe that someone who could open up or close off your employment prospects does not have political power over you? I do not understand how you can seriously suggest such a thing. TraderGail (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not political power. Calling it "political" power makes all of these "-cracy" articles meaningless. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Removed, per the absence of arguments for keeping the quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I think this entry needs a reference and link to Oligarchy and to Plato's Republic where that term is defined roughly as rule by the rich. Now, oligarchy is a well-defined descriptive term; it does not prima facie say anything about the speaker's attitude towards such a constitution. Plutocracy - named after the Greek god of wealth, Plutus [4] - is a pejorative, and being a pejorative is integral to its meaning. It's use is intended to say explicitly that this is a bad thing. Otherwise, the preferred term should be oligarchy, recent usage of that term pejoratively notwithstanding. Hence, when George Soros or Bill Gates do something one may consider good with their wealth, that's not plutocracy. Nor is the readily observable fact that wealthy people and corporations have certain kinds of influence in proportion to their wealth; one might indeed say that that's a tautology. With that in mind I think it appropriate to disentangle the term Plutocracy as a reference to a political system from the actual dealings of the very wealthy, as follows: A plutocracy is a political system where laws and policy serve the interests of the very wealthy to the detriment of the nation as a whole, impoveríshing the middle classes and driving the poor to destitution. - JValgreen (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ontological bias in Modern Politics section

There is a significant philosophical problem with the opening sentence of the Modern Politics section. While historical analysis of power throughout the ages might reveal that wealth is closely linked to power, it does not follow from this they also have this power 'by the nature of their existence'. This is a dangerous use of the notion of naturality in a political context. The danger resides in the possibility of using this argument as a (scientific) fact beyond the political. These kind of statements don't have a good historical track record and have been used time and again as a justification for oppression or persecution.

At the core, this is an ontological problem, where one person's being is presented as de facto better than another one's. While this is not an uncommon idea in many political movements, it has no place in a presumably unbiased Encyclopedia. Simonhold (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Add United States of America to the list of Plutocratic regimes?

I think that if one looks into the other definitions and examples of a Plutocracy found in this article, the United States of America clearly meets the requirements of a Plutocracy. 05:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

-Anonymous

While events certainly indicate a trend toward a plutocracy, more or less free elections by the general populous still defines a democracy. Milton Deemer (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I should hardly call a system in which one can vote for one of two identical candidates, both of whom had to have a lot of rich friends to get where they are, a free election. How about de-facto?

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.135.130 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as considering the USA as a plutocracy, I believe the argument has merit, considering the impact that money has on elections - there is a correlation between higher spending candidates and winning elections - and recent Supreme Court rulings that allow essentially unbridled spending by corporations for PACs that support candidates.

I think it is also important to note that the USA is not a democracy. It is a republic. Representatives are chosen in elections and make decisions for the people. This allows for more efficient government on the one hand but also the opportunity for vested interests to elect individuals that support initiatives that would be in their favor.

130.76.32.49 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)E.Nielsen

It is irrelevant whether you think the argument has merit. The question is, do reliable sources think the argument has merit. The answer appears to be "no". Some experts think the US should be considered a plutocracy, but it appears to be a minority view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

United States?

There is no reference and no reason to say that people argue that the United States of America is a plutocracy. I guess I'll remove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The US is a democracy, and obviously not a plutocracy, not very obvious since the bail outs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.172.128 (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article does not cite Michael Moore and say "The US is a plutocracy", which would obviously be against Wikipedia policy. Instead, the article cites a reliable secondary source, the Orlando Sentinel, in saying that one of his films describes evidence of plutocracy in the US. That's a fact, and that's how Wikipedia works. AV3000 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The citigroup memo discusses a stock plan, not politics. Read page seven, paragraph 3. I believe you are making the mistake of thinking the fact that an Orlando sentinel movie review references a michael moore movie, causes what the film said to be accurate. This is clearly WP:UNDUE and really speculation based on a poorly interepted citigroup stock investment plan. If the US is truly moving towards an plutocracy, then you should be able to find more sources. WWJBD456 (talk) 2049, 8 June 2010

The United States is a Republic; a so-called representative democracy. I'm currently doing research that proposes Republics can easily evolve into a Plutocracy. Augustun84 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So today, December 04, 2010, when the United States Senate votes on tax cuts for 99% of us or tax cuts for the top 1%, will we finally be able to end the silly debate, which to so many of us is obvious. Of course the United States is a Plutocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Still obviously wrong, and requires a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Not right but not so obviously wrong either. Augustun84 has the right idea when he says that the United States is a Representative democracy that may be evolving into a Plutocracy. In the US the wealthy and/or corporations are not in charge in the political sense but are using the mechanisms of Capitalism to manage political outcomes. This does not make it a Plutocracy but people are justified in drawing a parallel. Not sure how to weave this into the article without sounding biased. User:Dick P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.128.75 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable, non-political source which says that, it might be added. "Weave"ing it into the article is WP:OR or WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

can you give me a reliable, non-political source which says that earth is round? i think its just a theory, dont point me to original research :), gravity is just a theory too, not sure what you are smoking, but do you mind sharing it with me?

05:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

United States again

A floating IP is adding the United States to the list of plutocracies, quoting a probably unreliable source, even though linked. It's claimed to be forthcoming in Perspectives on Politics, a "peer-reviewed journal". We need to wait for it to appear, and then we could note that it is not a majority opinion, so it shouldn't be in the summary. Per WP:FRINGE, we should report the mainstream journals which do not assert that the United States is a plutocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is completely corroborated by the peer reviewed charts at [7]. After several days of asking at other higher volume article talk pages, nobody has produced any sources to the contrary of the Princeton study's conclusions. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not required to "prove" any study to be false - the onus is on those who wish to include a study to show that it is widely cited and accepted in the area of study. Collect (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
That statement is written in a manner as to suggest that a policy is being directly quoted by

the onus is on those who wish to include a study to show that it is widely cited and accepted in the area of study

So, the onus is now on you to show me from whence that "policy based rationale" is derived. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not knowing how to use the talk page. If the United States does not belong in examples then why is half of the plutocracy page dedicated to talking about the United States? Do you want to delete half of the entire article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- what is needed is material which directly relates to the topic and is found in WP:RS reliable sources, and has wide acceptance in the area concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You wanted references? I got your references. The string of numbers is longer than the four words added. Deal with it bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Deal with it bro" is scarcely a convincing argument that the sources are widely cited and relevant. Perhaps you misapprehended the statement? Collect (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well at least I have an argument and references. Whoever deletes this, please state why all seven references are invalid instead of bashing talk page humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Give cites that your refs are widely cited by others, that they make specific claims that the US is a "plutocracy" and that they are not WP:FRINGE views. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Here, again, you state in quotes, widely cited, and I'm going to ask again that you show me the policy you are quoting.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For what other page or statement is it required that one has references for their references? You want an article to prove another article is an article? You would need to delete 99% of Wikipedia based on that requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I also must point out that not a single one of the other governments named in that list have a single reference, and you are not going about deleting them.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

United States 3

The United States section consists of (IMO, excessive) quotes, without adequate context to verify that they are relating to what we call "plutocracy". Furthermore, they are form a minority, if not WP:FRINGE, opinion, and should be balanced by reliable opinions which deny the claim that the US forms a plutocracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is New York Times a fringe source? Feel free to add sources stating a counter-argument.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If I can chip in here - for various reasons - since, (as the article itself points out) Plutocracy is inherently a perjorative term, and inherently has a strong element of value judgement about it, either including or omitting ANY country in a list seems fairly unproductive. What does seem productive is to put forward the character of the arguments that informed/articulate/reliable sources have made. I largely sympathise with Arthur Rubin and agree that the references to the US are excessive and fairly rambling. There are many pages where similar discussions COULD take place, but crucially, for example a page on democracy should inform as to the history of the idea and practice of democracy, should use examples of the success or failure of systems of democracy etc. .... It SHOULDN"T get itself bogged down in whether this or that place was or was not a democracy, which does seem to be what is happening here.Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
What precisely about the sources and charts describing the US do you find "excessive and fairly rambling"? What is your assessment of their accuracy and agreement with the peer reviewed literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The sources, for one thing, do not call the US government a "plutocracy" and I regret that you are backing edits made by an edit warring IP at this point. Aside from the sources not backing the claims made, the new Princeton study has not been widely cited nor accepted by others - in any contentious matters, a study which is cited by others is a better source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that the sources for the charts are sufficiently cited? EllenCT (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
EllenCT, I presume your questions above were directed at me, since you quote me. Firstly I don't anywhere in what I said question the reliability of the sources, at least one source is published by Cam Univ Press, and (as far as I know) is completely academically legit. ... other sources I know nothing about, however I DIDN"T QUESTION the sources. To answer your other question, how am I expected to 'identify precisely' what is 'fairly rambling', isn't that a bit of a contradiction in terms?
My main point above is that this is meant to be an article about Plutocracy, not an article about whether the US (or the UK or anywhere else) is or is not a plutocracy. In my own personal opinion (as a Brit), I am astonished by the extent to which the whole American political process (from 3500+ miles away), seems governed by money, campaign money, TV advertising etc., so I am fairly sympathetic to the accusation that disproportionate power lies in the hands of the very wealthy /big corporations /media giants. However, I wonder whether the innocent reader coming to this page wanting clues as to what plutocracy was as a concept, would want detailed charts on economic inequality in the US or income levels of US Senators. Perhaps this material does belong SOMEWHERE, and should be linked to here, but I wonder how useful/enlightening, beyond the general assertion that the US has been accused of/is sometimes seen as plutocratic is on THIS page. If you went to a page on Democracy would you really expect half of the page to be devoted to arguments about whether the UK monarchy, should or should not be called a democracy, or whether China was meaningfully a democracy? I don't think so, beyond recording that such discussions exist and pointing you towards those discussions.
My other point is that the word is inherently perjorative, and to a very large extent subjective, therefore no two people are ever going to agree as to whether this place or that place is plutocratic any more than they are going to agree about what is or is not ugly!Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you think Oligarchy is a superior location for inclusion? How about Income inequality in the United States and United States politics? EllenCT (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
That is a task for the editors on those topics to arrive at a consensus for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
EllenCT firstly, apologies, the 'charts on income levels of US Senators' are in a link you made above not in THIS article, it was late when I wrote that and memory let me down when trying to think of an example of excessive detail. Where should this material be? I don't know as I am insufficiently knowledgeable about these pages and am only here at all by foolishly getting involved in tidying up some UK references.
I disagree with some other editors to this extent however, although these pieces of research may be recent, (and although they may or may not be the most authorative available), nevertheless, the argument as to whether the voter or powerful interest groups control a country is probably as old as time, as is the argument as to whether political decisions are made to benefit the country/populace or simply in the interest of those powerful groups (Government of/by/for the economically powerful). Therefore this page could legitimately report that this debate exists, we don't have to take sides or to wait until the majority of economic/political commentators agree on the subject. On a related point - for a variety of reasons - no state has ever described itself as a plutocracy, so if we aren't careful, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that no state is/was or has ever been described as plutocratic, except those of which every potential defender has long since disappeared into history.Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better page on which to discuss the modern plutocratic leanings of the United States? I think this is a real issue that effects many people worldwide that ought to be discussed. As an American I am deeply sickened that we spend so much tax money on overthrowing governments in other countries, bailing out corporations that deserve to fail, inefficient biofuels from corn, more wars to fix the problems we created from overthrowing governments in other countries, keeping nonviolent and mentally ill people in jails, sexually assaulting the elderly in airports, giving tax breaks to people who don't deserve or need them, and not nearly enough to fix the impossible national debt that threatens the nation's very existence. None of these issues would occur in a direct democracy setting, and very few of these issues would occur if money and lobbyists were strictly barred from the political realm. Can we make a page specifically to discuss the problems that the United States has with money in politics?2605:A000:F2C0:A400:404:D21C:890A:A7EB (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an "America's got problems" page. There can be a section on lobbyists, a section on citizens united, a section on laws being created in secret trade deals like the TPP, a section on unrestricted political campaign contributions, a section on corporate person-hood, etc.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:404:D21C:890A:A7EB (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Politics of the United States. — goethean 17:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing some of the sourcing, I've re-added some of the material that has been removed without a policy-based rationale. The sources all appear to meet RS, and some are academic, being published as recently as a month ago.
It appears to me that the only objection that could be raised to that material is that no explicit mention of "plutocracy" is made, but that raises the question of descriptive versus prescriptive linguistics, as the conditions describing oligarchy in the sources are those defining plutocracy in the article. The quotes are all attributed, etc.
Are there editors that aim to assert that the descriptions of "oligarchy" and tendencies thereof in the sources are not related to plutocracy? I should not that the term "formal" is used with respect to London. That begs the question as to what would be considered an "informal" plutocracy, and the sources describing oligarchic tendencies in the USA may provide some answers--or useful information to readers seeking to answer that question for themselves.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I'm the person responsible for tidying (though not writing) the London and other UK references recently. To clarify and answer your questions, the City of London Corporation's electoral arrangements are 'formal', in the sense that they are enshrined in law (laws which - relatively recently - were passed by the UK Parliament and which were duly debated/voted on etc.).
You ask 'what would be an "informal" plutocracy?' The answer is almost everywhere else in the modern world which has been accused of being plutocratic, where the link between political influence and money tends to be covert or made up of implied understandings. Though whether 'London Corp.' is actually even remotely plutocratic is VERY debatable, I won't bore you with the details, but most British politicians, academics/political commentators etc. would say no, or, - if it is at all - it is totally inconsequential, since the Corporation has about as much real power as the School Board of Washington DC (or some-such very local US body - close to power, but having none of its own). I wasn't very happy with my own edits, but left things as they were since it introduced the subject fairly succintly and linked to pages where it was explored more fully.Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Are UK honours plutocratic ?

I'm questioning the assertion in the article that "Some systems even specifically provide for such patronage. The UK, for example, uses a variety of means to reward individuals that hold the same values or interests. These include honours such as medals and honorary titles dating back to the nation's feudal era". Perhaps, more correctly I'm questioning that UK Honours are plutocratic .... firstly, money - of itself - does not buy you an honour .... secondly most honours confer no power or privilege beyond the kudos of being Sir Paul (or whatever) .... thirdly, honours are awarded across a fairly broad spectrum of political and opinion 'camps'.

Therefore, it seems to me that the UK Honours system fails all three criteria for plutocracy, firstly, you can't buy your way 'in', secondly, being 'in' confers no position or political power and thirdly the 'honoured' do NOT act as a homogenous self-rewarding group.

In theory the honours system acts as a counter-balance to any plutocratic tendencies in that people are being honoured for making unrewarded contributions to public life ... a big "thankyou".

Of course there have occasionally been notorious exceptions to this principle, but that of itself does not make the honours system plutocratic in character. Of course also, powerful financial interests in the UK probably don't find it hard to attract the 'ear of government', but it is not the honours system which exemplifies or upholds this tendency, rather the opposite.

BTW, I agree that the Local Government of the (old) City of London (mentioned elsewhere in the article) is anomalous and possibly plutocratic in character. The only possible justification for the system being that the local government of The City has barely any powers worth mentioning! So, "if they want to play, let them", would be most people's reaction in the UK.

Unless somebody comes up with a sound reason or mainstream justification, I will remove the reference to the UK honours system, I'm happy for anybody to criticise the system, which is perhaps anachronistic, inconsistent and - at times - plain daft, it is not I contend generally thought to be inherently plutocratic.Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the UK honours system, for the reasons given above and because I doubt if most mainstream sources would support the assertion.

Whoever wrote this MAY be getting 'Honours'(in general) mixed up with Peerages, which are the top layer of 'Honours' and which anyway confer little political power on the holder(and specifically NO POWER over finance matters).

That traditionally Britain was a hereditary aristocracy (which might be thought of as a form of plutocracy) is a matter of historical fact, interpolating that the modern system works in the same way, is fairly ill-informed.Pincrete (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


City of London reference: I have just amended the 'London' reference, in order to make it clear that this is the opinion of 'some commentators' rather than an acknowledged truth. If anyone can rephrase this making it clear that - 1) this is very local 2) it is formal (open, written into law, result of a democratically arrived at decision) 3) it is the opinion of 'some' that it is plutocratic - they are welcome to rephrase it. Thanks to those who didn't fully understand the previous re-writing (by me), for nudging me into action!Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Labor unions as contributing to oligarchy??? Not according to Gilens and Page

The following paragraph is from p. 22 of the Gilens and Page paper.

Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will and ensuring that their wishes prevail in the fashion postulated by theories of Majoritarian Pluralism. Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest group system as a whole does not. Over-all, net interest group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. The net alignments of the most influential, business oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole. “Potential groups” do not take up the slack, either, since average citizens’ preferences have little or no independent impact on policy after existing groups’ stands are controlled for.

And the first paragraph from the paper that refers to unions (there are only two such paragraphs) reads

Some particular U.S. membership organizations – especially the AARP and labor unions – do tend to favor the same policies as average citizens. But other membership groups take stands that are unrelated (pro-life and pro-choice groups) or negatively related (gun owners) to what the average American wants.40 Some membership groups may reflect the views of corporate backers or their most affluent constituents. Others focus on issues on which the public is fairly evenly divided. Whatever the reasons, all mass-based groups taken together simply do not add up, in aggregate, to good representatives of the citizenry as a whole. Business-oriented groups do even worse, with a modest negative over-all correlation of -.10.

There is nothing in there that would justify the conflation of labor unions with the types of interest groups that do not represent the views of the average citizen.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


The edit in question is

Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy, through the influence of corporations, the wealthy, unions and other special interest groups

And the source specifically includes unions as one of the special interest groups.

Some particular U.S. membership organizations – especially the AARP and labor unions – do tend to favor the same policies as average citizens. But other membership groups take stands that are unrelated (pro-life and pro-choice groups) or negatively related (gun owners) to what the average American wants.40 Some membership groups may reflect the views of corporate backers or their most affluent constituents. Others focus on issues on which the public is fairly evenly divided. Whatever the reasons, all mass-based groups taken together simply do not add up, in aggregate, to good representatives of the citizenry as a whole. (emphasis added)

Noting that unions are part of the class of "all mass-based groups."

Thus it is proper to mention that the study does refer to unions as one of the special interest groups. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentence still misrepresents the source by establishing a false equivalence between individual groups, which is clearly contradicted by the paper.
You neglect to add "taken together" to "all mass base groups", as in the text,
"all mass-based groups taken together",
which is a direct parallel to the statement in the other paragraph of
the interest group system as a whole.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I.e. you aver that unions and other special interest groups do have an influence on public policy, and that such "mass based groups" have an "influence"? Right? Collect (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

*Just an unobtrusive note to say that I am watching this and will be happy to help out if needed. --John (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Knowing NOTHING about the subject, nor about Witers & Page, nonetheless, I have to say that the quotes here (and on other pages where you discuss this) do NOT support the assertion that Labor Unions CONTRIBUTE to the development of Oligarchy, (which seems to be the core of the disagreement and which is clearly implied in :-"the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy, through the influence of corporations, the wealthy, unions and other special interest groups"), not unless one makes an unjustified extrapolation that the failure to fully represent/reflect (which you appear to NOT disagree about) is ITSELF contributory, or that ANY influence is necessarily contributory to the drift. Neither of these lines of logic are in any of the source quotes here.Pincrete (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The Gilens and Page paper is fairly short, and available as a pdf here.
Here is another brief quote from p. 3

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
While I'm here, I have two thoughts.
  • Collect does make a good point, insofar as making a strictly logical interpretation of the cited passage. I refer to this, "Whatever the reasons, all mass-based groups taken together simply do not add up, in aggregate, to good representatives of the citizenry as a whole."
  • I would tend to agree with Ubikwit and Pincrete, that it is silly to claim that the existence of labor unions is causally linked to oligarchy, or plutocracy! This is based on the assumption that a significant portion of the population has union representation, though. I don't recall exactly, but I do know that the numbers are way down, into the single digits on a percentage basis (5% maybe). In the 1950's - 1980's, approx 20% of the U.S. workforce was "unionized". So unions, while intended to strengthen and give voice/political influence to those who would have none otherwise, still have power but no longer represent, um, the proletariat masses, as they once did. (I wish they'd stop claiming that gun rights groups are not representative of the will of the people! I'd love to see a poll of union membership and gun ownership views. My relatives and friends in the Teamsters, electrical workers unions, etc. are all firearms rights advocates.) If anything, I'd expect plutocrats to benefit from weakened unions. This might belong in the oligarchy article, more than plutocracy though.--FeralOink (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
FeralOink, sorry to be priggish and 'editorial', but I didn't say that the claims about Unions contributing to oligarchy were 'silly', merely that the claims weren't supported by the passages being quoted.Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevance tag

Almost all of the comments in the United States section, including the one where I placed the "relevance" tag, were about oligarchy, with little evidence that it was associated with wealth. The tyranny of the majority rule by the "upper class" is not necessarily plutocracy ("rule by the wealthy", although defined here as "rule ... by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens.") Those sources which do not specifically refer to the wealthy are not relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. – S. Rich (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic section: oligarchy ≠ plutocracy

Perhaps we can refocus the discussion. 1. The particular section was tagged off-topic. E.g., none of the resources cited used the term "plutocracy". Per the Manual of Style WP:TOPIC, we've got to focus on plutocracy and not diverge into material such as oligarchy, etc. Those topics have their own articles. Moreover, WP Policy WP:PRECISION requires us "to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article...." Once we have done so with the word "plutocracy", we've got to stick to the topic. We can't use references that discuss oligarchies even if the references have rich people as their focus. If the references don't directly use the term, then they do not meet RS standards for context. 2. The section was recently shortened, but it still remains outside of the topic (plutocracy) of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree--it was me that raised the issue above--that there may be some concern of SYNTH, but I don't understand with certainty whether it goes against policy to include statements relating to the growing influence of wealth on the democratic political process, which would lead to plutocracy if "formalized", as with the reference to London.
The crux of the matter is the drift toward plutocracy, not simply income inequality in a vacuum.
It would seem that there should be a manner by which to provide sufficient context to such statements that facilitates their inclusion.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The crux of the matter is NOT the drift towards anything. The crux of the matter, for us as Wikipedians, is how to edit Wikipedia within the guidelines and policies established for us and by us. As the material does not directly support the topic of the article, we must keep it out. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The following are two passages quoted directly from the current section on the USA (emphasis added)

Chrystia Freeland, author of Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else,[19] says that the present trend towards plutocracy occurs and is self-justified because the rich feel "[their] own personal self-interest is in the interests of everybody else."

Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy

I don't see where provided RS statements elaborating on those statement is in violation of policy, but perhaps you'd be willing to quote (directly) the policy to which you refer. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Freeland quote was above the off-topic template – the template has been removed and the remaining sentence is tagged with an in-line relevance template. I have no problem with keeping Freeland because she is talking about plutocracy. When the cited material does not talk about plutocracy directly, it does not belong. "A form of oligarchy" does not say or necessarily mean plutocracy. If they mean plutocracy, then they should say so. Since they do not, we cannot use it. – S. Rich (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Again "form of oligarchy" is not proper summary style paraphrasing of G&P. If they are not saying the US is moving towards plutocracy, then we cannot use it. Relevance tag is restored & vague tag is added. – S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead of the article states

a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens

while the Gilens paper focuses on the ability of "economic elites" to exert undue influence on policy decisions in a democracy. When the paper mentions a form of oligarchy, it is apparent that there are plutocractic dimensions to that form of oligarchy.
Elswhere in the article there are statements to the effect that the concept is employed as a warning in political discourse, which is something that the Gilens paper does.
I'm going to go through the paper with a fine tooth comb when I have the time and put some more quotes up here.
Note that paper on hiring law professors is also relevant to this article and the material needs to be restored once the proper context is framed. That addresses the problem of nepotistic practices (as opposed to meritocracy) in dominating quasi-public institutions such as law schools as well as public institutions in the judiciary, i.e., the Supreme Court. I will have to read the entire paper, though...
Incidentally, I have looked up WP:TOPIC (part of an essay on writing better articles) and WP:PRECISE (part of a policy applicable to the naming of articles), and I see no basis for the recourse to either here. The rationale that because the paper doesn't specifically mention "plutocracy" does not mean it doesn't describe it as defined in this article. Once again, this is a question related to descriptive and prescriptive linguistics. I see no Wikipedia policy that would proscribe inclusion of the Gilens paper, and it is POV to claim that the statements from the paper (or multiple RS media analysis thereof) are "irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information"
I've added the Gilens quote citing Winters here, as that covers the "vague" tag. The newly articulated concept of "civil oligarchy" straddles both the oligarchy and plutocracy articles. I don't think there is any doubt as to the relevance of the material, but maybe there will be some further discussion by additional editors. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:13, 12 May 2014; 11:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I wish the edits resolved the problem, but they don't. Since the sources do not explicitly state that the US is a plutocracy, they cannot be used. Adding them as has been done, to support the idea that the US is (or is drifting towards) a plutocracy violates WP:SYNTHESIS. There are enough sources (4 paragraphs), supported by proper editing, in the section about the US as an example of plutocracy. Since Winters does not directly support the idea, we cannot use him. Doing so is adding our own spin about wealth in the US. – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Unless you can show me a specific policy that supports the assertion, I disagree, for the following reasons.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.". I do't see where the text strays from that. Hopefully we can get some others to join this discussion. If necessary, we can go to the WP:SYNTH notice board for input.
Incidentally, you seem to be evaluating Winters/Gilens strictly on the use of the word "plutocracy", while neglecting the fact that Winters has introduced a new and novel theory into academic discourse that includes the concept of "civil oligarchy", which relates directly to the ability of the wealthy to exert undue influence over government policy. Gilens and Page make reference to that concept, and make similar arguments with respect to "economic elites" through a somewhat more empirical study.
The other citations are also good, but this is the most current scholarship on the subject, and the Gilens paper is highly cited, while Winters' book was granted a notable award.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
If Winters says "'civil oligarchy' = plutocracy = 'civil oligarchy'", then he could be used in this article. But he doesn't. (At page 27 he says "For Aristotle, plutocracy is a redundant term." Google books does not show any other usage of plutocracy in Winter's book.) The WP policy is there: the source must explicitly state such-and-such. It does not allow for straddling. The concept of "civil oligarchy" belongs in oligarchy as a subsection, perhaps best in manifestations. Winters talks about a sultanistic oligarchy, and refers to Singapore, Suharto & Indonesia when talking about the civil oligarchy. He also says "A preliminary point is that civil oligarchy has very little in common with the elite theory as it evolved in the U.S. context." (page 221). All of this serves to show that Winters does not explicitly, clearly, or directly support the idea that the US is a plutocracy. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful my observations might be to this discussion, but I will go ahead anyway. Firstly, is it not the case that Plutocracy is a 'genus' of Oligarchy, in which membership of the 'oligos' is achieved through wealth. Therefore it seems excessively prescriptivist to insist that the RS MUST use the precise word 'plutocracy' ... if the RS refers to 'an oligarchy of the wealthiest N percent' (or some-such unambiguous formulation), it seems impossible to exclude the RS from this page, because of their choice of words (there may of course be other reasons for exclusion). I am NOT of course suggesting we mis-quote the RS, but excluding them from the page seems pedantic.

Further, some editors have suggested that the source MUST say 'the US is a plutocracy', others that this must be the 'mainstream' view. I would point out that the 'Usage" paragraph of the article states that the term is often used to describe or warn against an undesirable condition, that rider combined with the 'Some commentators have suggested ……' formulation. Seem to me to be both sufficiently fair and accurate. We are entitled to assume that the reader is able to understand that Some commentators have said the US is … means something very different from The US is … . Especially when the RSs frequently use 'drifting towards'/ 'essentially' or some other form of words that qualify the 'core statement'. I am exaggerating only slightly when I say that this is the difference between Some doctors warned the patient that if he didn't … he would be putting his life in jeopardy and The doctors said the patient is dead/dying!.

I followed Ubikwit's link above, CONTEXTMATTERS, rather expecting to find something different. The 'something different' which I expected to find was another sense in which context matters which I will propose - although I have no idea whether my argument is supported by guidelines. To choose two extreme examples to make my point, if this page were about 'The Political System of the US', I think it would be appropriate to first and principally represent the 'Official view', that the US is a Representative Democracy and to describe the history, operation etc of that democracy. Any mention of criticisms/failures/flaws would tend to be expressed succinctly, linking to more detailed pages and quite a long way down that particular page. At the other extreme a page about 'Sex scandals in the UK government' wouldn't feel obliged to say ANYTHING about the fact that most UK politicians are/aren't model husbands and wives, context itself (that the page is about scandals), would provide the necessary balance.

The relevance of this to the plutocracy discussion seems to be that the page is about plutocracy, and is looking for examples that SOME RSs have characterised as plutocratic, I think it is implicit in the use of 'some' that other RSs disagree (or hold no opinion). It might be appropriate for there to be a page in which both sides of the discussion were given proportionate weight, but I don't see the need for equal weight HERE. This is me adopting a 'common-sensical' approach that may be anathema to some, and may or may not be supported by guidelines.

There IS a form of balance that concerns me more. As a non-American, it concerns me that if too much US material is included, the balance of the page as a whole becomes an excessively detailed debate as to whether/to what extent the US is/ is not/ is becoming a plutocracy. This is not the case at present, but I register it as a consideration.Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I just noticed that the Winters book--at least some pages--is up on googlbooks now, so here is a link to the start of the substantial chapter on "civil oligarchy", much of which appears to be specifically about the USA [8].--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Civil oligarchy according to Winters

I'm putting this as a new section because the info may be of interest to other editors. It was me that raised the question as to what 'civil' oligarchy IS (according to Winters). The answer is not a wholly simple one, Winters contrasts 4 major types of oligarchy, with 'warring' being the most primitive and 'civil' the most developed. In a civil oligarchy, the oligarchs leave the implementation of law and defence of property/interests to the State, concentrating on defence of their own income and on tax avoidance, civil oligarchies are often, but not necessarily democracies. It is difficult to see a directly quotable/concise definition to clarify the term, but I will 'chew on it'. Anyone wanting to check this out, the definition is on p36 of the preface. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Tidy/clarify needed?

Firstly, I wonder whether the reference to Roosevelt era is in the right place, firstly it isn't in historic order as the rest of the section is (following Nixon) but it also largely duplicates the content in the "Use as propaganda section". The relevant text is: A similar position was taken by the Fourth International in January 1941, which stated "Roosevelt’s administration, which claims to be democratic, is really the representative of these piratic plutocrats" and that "the twin capitalist parties control all the main avenues for reaching the masses (the press, radio, halls, etc) ...they collect millions from their wealthy masters and spend them to bamboozle the public and buy elections. Secondly, the term 'civil oligarchy' is later introduced, but little clarification given as to what it means .... Is this 'civil' as in civilian (not military or aristocracy)? I think a brief clarification is in order, the precise meaning isn't obvious to me at least.Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted the Roosevelt quote, as it seems to have been used out of context and was definitely somewhat forced, as you point out, in the article. Here is the paragraph in which is appears in the source, which also seems somewhat questionable.

This is a pernicious lie, say the Marxists. There cannot be any full realization or further development of democratic freedom under capitalism. Bourgeois democracy is a screen behind which a small group of bankers and big business men dictate national policies. Roosevelt’s administration, which claims to be democratic, is really the representative of these piratic plutocrats who exploit and tyranize the working masses. Capitalist democracy rests upon fraud and force. The fable that the regime at Washington consults and fulfills the wishes of the American people is in itself an essential part of this elaborate mechanism of deceit.

The "civil democracyoligarchy" term seems to be a newly developed neologism of a sort, and though I haven't read the book, Winters appears to be referring to a defacto oligarchy in which there is a democratically representative government. As mentioned above, his book won what seems like a fairly prestigious award, and the reference in the text represents a direct quote from the Princeton paper, so they mutually support each other as representing the leading-edge of scholarship.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I kind of guessed that 'Civil Oligarchy' might have some-such meaning. 'Civil' is one of those malleable words that changes meaning (civil war, civil disobedience, civil authorities, civil behaviour) ... I wasn't questioning its use HERE or in the original, merely thinking that some clarification of Winters meaning would help (if available).
The US section reads much better without 'Roosevelt' ... it is now in sequence and covers fairly 'serious' analysis rather than mere 'name-calling'. Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ubikwit, so very much, for removing that section! This, in particular,

"Roosevelt’s administration, which claims to be democratic, is really the representative of these piratic plutocrats who exploit and tyranize the working masses."

For purposes of Wikipedia, that is misleading. It makes sense, within a certain context of time and place, i.e. the Fourth International in January 1941, but without a complete understanding of such, it will just cause confusion. It almost reminds me of the discussions that I get into with the more politicized Rothbard/ von Mises/ Austrian economics crowd, who insist that FDR and the Federal Reserve are the very Devil's work, to oppress small business and meritorious endeavor. Except they wouldn't say, "oppress", nor Devil's work ;o) I'm sorry for not indenting properly. I wanted ro use one of those long arrow outdents, but couldn't figure out how.--FeralOink (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and considering the FDR was the architect of the New Deal, which helped pull people through the Great Depression,which in turn was caused by the plutocracy, it was a terribly misrepresentative example. Almost makes you think that the person(s) responsible for it were not communists at all but agents of the plutocrats. The president generally held responsible for the Great Depression Herbert Hoover, for example, would seem to have been a more appropriate target for their critique.
In fact, I am working on putting put something related to Theodore Roosevelt, the president that introduced so-called Anti-Trust laws. He made reference to plutocracy in a speech he gave in 1931. Here is a link to a quote on Wikiquotes from that speech.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yay! Sherman Act!--FeralOink (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The the plutocracy was responsible for the great depression is an opinion, which I don't think is clearly established. One might say that the wealthy were opposed to policies which might have reduced the depth (but probably increased the length) of the great depression, but going beyond that would be an opinion. This has little to do with the article, but only Ubikwit's dictum (to be precise, simplex dictum) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Authur Rubin: What are you talking about, my "dictum"? The statements are well sourced to the work of established historians--a total of six of them, number 9-14 on the list.
Am I missing something in your comment focus wise? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a dictum, and you misspelled my name, so I didn't receive notice. "Plutocracy" being responsible for the great depression is not mentioned in the article, and none of the six sources used for the statement "Some modern historians, politicians and economists state that the United States was effectively plutocratic for at least part of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era periods between the end of the Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression" are available online. so I don't know if they support even that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: Well, I didn't even add those sources and the material predates my contributing to this article, so I hardly see how that makes its inclusion something characterizable as my "dictum".
Just because you don't have the time to go to the library and verify the content doesn't mean it isn't there.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually it does qualify as your dictum, because it cannot rationally be viewed as even related to the statement in the article, although it would seem plausible that some of the sources that made the statement reported in the article might have made the statement you made.
As for the accuracy of source interpretation: It's not conclusive, but many of the sources in oligarchy (where many of the statements and sources in this article belong) do not support the statements made. And both articles have been used to host the spammed source and unrelated statement the source is used to support, that should only be used in the article wealth inequality in the United States. As that spammer (not you) is still active, yhat seems sufficient for me to have a "reasonable doubt" that the sources here have the same problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, Arthur, there were a number of statements being discussed, including more than one by TR, but the one that I based my explanation on regarding the text related to FDR was the first sentence of the paragraph in the USA section

Some modern historians, politicians and economists state that the United States was effectively plutocratic for at least part of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era periods between the end of the Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression.

Let's not belabor the point any further.
If you have any concrete comments on specific sources and statements, let's move onto those. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul (2006). World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 522. ISBN 9781576079409. Cite error: The named reference "blamires" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Wall Street Journal[dead link]
  3. ^ "Politico". Politico. 2011-06-27. Retrieved 2011-06-27.
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plutocracy/Archive_1&oldid=1243944262"