Is USA a Plutocracy? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Odiseizam
#15155829
There is just some ontopic mentioning in the corporatism subforum [1] but no particular thread ...

... reasoning on the matter in the eu$federalism thread though it would useful for separate topic here too ... I would like to hear opinions how accurate is this kind of stance, if not to what degree is true, and finally is it possible this trend to be reversed ...

    Odiseizam wrote:now this said TTIP will loosen any social-democratic mindset in eU, and later along its federalization that will lead to plutocracy as is now in usA [1][1]-[2][2]-[3][3][3]
By Atlantis
#15155833
Even by very conservative estimates, the US is most certainly a plutocracy.

However, I don't believe that a trade deal with the US will turn the EU into a plutocracy. Anyways, TTIP is dead and won't be revived. It ultimately failed because of conflicting legal systems underpinning different types of society. The Civil Law of continental Europe recognizes the supremacy of the public interest, while the Common Law of the Anglosphere recognizes the supremacy of private (ie. corporate) interests. TTIP failed because the US wanted private international litigation courts to sue sovereign states while the EU insisted on judicial courts to rule on contentious issues.

The EU has to trade with countries around the world to maintain its prosperity and defend the interests of its citizens. An isolated and impoverished Europe would be guaranteed to decline. Trading with China doesn't turn the EU into a totalitarian regime and trading with the US doesn't turn us into a plutocracy.

Social democracy and the social market economy have deep roots in Europe. Otto von Bismarck created the first welfare system 150 years ago. Whatever happens, Europe will not dismantle its social systems, at least not in a substantial manner.
User avatar
By Odiseizam
#15155842
@Atlantis on the TTIP deal that will pass, till recently greatest obstacle was Trump, while the negotiation with eU with end up in some modus-vivendi deal, either that or the usA wouldnt have other choice but big wars, and from that looser will become all [1] so TTIP is reality, the question is how quick it will reveal itself in practical way ... when that will happen american banc'corp elites will bribe and corrupt all eU easily, it would be naive to believe that they would not do that, at least so it could be tied eU more strongly through economical pressure so it would follow the american foreign policy without objections ... we can discuss this in the proposed footnote if You like ...

    now, here in regard of the ontopic question, I think maybe Plutocracy is not the right anamnesis for usA, but more like Democratic Bureaucracy misused by the american oligarchy, that even in case with Trump didnt installed itself in the key political positions, he was opportunist and nationalist first of all and then after corporatist, even independent one, Hillary for example was way deeper in the banc'corp pockets than him, altho he was also collecting money by campaign donations ...

... solely this last mechanism is the corruptible link that brings usA to risks of Plutocracy, are they real I cant tell because I have never investigated the ties between the banc'corp elites in usA with the political cream, but somehow think that banc'corp elites are controlling all the processes from background, not even need to bribe someone so it would push their agendas, after all they bought all the nation long ago [1] so it could be said indeed usA is Plutocracy but masked so good that this could be only speculated, in a way they control all the intellectual incubators in the country which as universities are cloning needed young leaders that are then placed in the political system which is arranged in such way that its even looking as bipartisan but actually is one "corporate" party ideological syndicalism nowadays with no room for any third option, somehow Trump maybe is the first modern us president that have succeed to brake this rule as independent!
By Atlantis
#15155843
@Odiseizam, TTIP was dead before Trump. That has nothing to do with Trump. TTIP had no chance of ratification in the EU because of the US demand for private litigation courts and lower environmental and food standards. For the US there is no point in signing a deal if it can't sell its food products.

Biden has other fish to fry. A comprehensive trade deal is not high on his agenda. Therefore, TTIP will not be revived in its previous or in any other form.
User avatar
By Odiseizam
#15155862
in regard to my response in eu&federalism thread, I would say how corporations are secured in usA it could be said that they are protected like white bears there that eventually have eaten the system as banc'corp elites thus the citizens and their representatives are just observers of their show and how they are managing as the domestic so as the foreign politics in it, one example is the military industry in the last two decades of anti'terorist or democracy'export wars, is this so obvious or I am wrong, maybe they are just links in greater western imperial agenda!? now the question is who is holding the m-companies, were they national in the beginning and then privatized? probably if we go backwards we will se that somehow there is bigger skim how the bankster became behind biggest corporation since BIC and spinned the game in own benefit [1][1] and ultimately they installed like that plutocracy directly in usA and indirectly throughout the world!

“Clean-energy investments are second, with about seventeen jobs per $1 million of spending. The U.S. military creates about twelve jobs, while spending within the fossil-fuel sector creates about five jobs per $1 million.” [1]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_by_year

https://youtu.be/UgMumPFJVew
#15155864
The West used to be ruled by monarchs. The aristocrats stripped them of their power and took over. The Founding Fathers were not poor peasants, they were not slaves or housewives, they were the powerful white men and the educated elites and made a system that guaranteed equality while not undermining their interests, which wasn't equality at all. The Founding Fathers created a system in 1789 where the only people who could vote were land-owning white males, which at the time was 6% of the population.
#15155865
Of course the US is a plutocracy. They're barely even trying to hide it anymore. I won't be surprised if they literally sell the country to Jeff Bezos and rename it the United States of Amazon within my lifetime. :lol:
User avatar
By Odiseizam
#15155870
@Heisenberg as annual turnaround your logic would be more suitable for united states of Walmart ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue#List

but if we know that what keeps the main american casino to roll [1] then it should be called the united states of Morgan coz its derivative exposure of $70 trillion dollars

https://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15155895
Unthinking Majority wrote:The West used to be ruled by monarchs. The aristocrats stripped them of their power and took over. The Founding Fathers were not poor peasants, they were not slaves or housewives, they were the powerful white men and the educated elites and made a system that guaranteed equality while not undermining their interests, which wasn't equality at all. The Founding Fathers created a system in 1789 where the only people who could vote were land-owning white males, which at the time was 6% of the population.

Well if we ask equality for whom, it was equality for those wealthy land owners.
Who is ‘we’? Is critical
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/equality.htm
Equality has been recognised as a norm of social justice since ancient times, but the question is equality of what, for whom? I don’t think “equality” in its narrow conception as equal shares of the social product has ever had significant force, and as Vanessa pointed out, appears in this guise only as parody.
One of the great gains of modernity has been the continual expansion of the domain of “us” for whom “equality” is the equality of equals. When the founding fathers of 1776 and 1789 [1] declared that “all men are created equal” we know that the authors never had a second thought about limiting themselves to “men,” and nor for a moment did they intend to include slaves or Native Americans. Nor did they for a moment think that they were declaring for an equal sharing of the social product. But it would be wrong, wouldn’t it, to accuse these revolutionaries of hypocrisy.
Equality has always been conceived as relevant only to those who are included, to those who are participants in domain across which equality is applicable. In pre-bourgeois society equality was equality of equals,[2] that is to say of people on the same rung of a very long ladder of status subordination. The bourgeois revolution, socialism, feminism, national liberation movements and so on, in the context of an ever-expanding and intensifying unification of the labour process, have now more or less delegitimised status subordination and completed the universalisation of the domain over which equality is deemed to apply. The last remaining domain in which inequality and status subordination are legitimated is in the “line management” hierarchy of the functional division of labour.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158132

The FinCEN Files are leaked documents from the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), that have been investigated by BuzzFeed News and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and globally publicised on 20 September 2020.[1][2] The reports describe over 200,000 suspicious financial transactions valued at over US$2 trillion that occurred from 1999 to 2017 across multiple global financial institutions.[1] The documents appear to show that while both the banks and the United States Government had this financial intelligence, they did little to stop activities such as money laundering.[1] The information implicates financial institutions in more than 170 countries who played a role in facilitating money laundering and other fraudulent crimes.[1] Journalists around the world have criticized both the banks and the US government, the BBC stating it shows how the "world's biggest banks have allowed criminals to move dirty money around the world", and BuzzFeed News claiming the files "offer an unprecedented view of global financial corruption, the banks enabling it, and the government agencies that watch as it flourishes."[1][3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinCEN_Files
#15158197
The FinCEN Files are leaked documents from the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), that have been investigated by BuzzFeed News and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and globally publicised on 20 September 2020.[1][2] The reports describe over 200,000 suspicious financial transactions valued at over US$2 trillion that occurred from 1999 to 2017 across multiple global financial institutions.[1] The documents appear to show that while both the banks and the United States Government had this financial intelligence, they did little to stop activities such as money laundering.[1] The information implicates financial institutions in more than 170 countries who played a role in facilitating money laundering and other fraudulent crimes.[1] Journalists around the world have criticized both the banks and the US government, the BBC stating it shows how the "world's biggest banks have allowed criminals to move dirty money around the world", and BuzzFeed News claiming the files "offer an unprecedented view of global financial corruption, the banks enabling it, and the government agencies that watch as it flourishes."[1][3]

User avatar
By Rancid
#15158199
I would say yes, and the American dream is precisely trying to join that plutocratic class.

I'm almost there, just need $200 more dollars!

To @Unthinking Majority majorities point. The nation was intentionally founded as a plutocracy. Believe it or not. Trumpism is an attempt to topple that plutocratic hold.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158306

In the course of the hearing, the heads of Metro D.C. Police and the US Capitol Police at the time of the insurrection admitted that their departments possessed intelligence reports warning of a violent attack on Congress in advance of the storming of the Capitol.

But in the place of any serious explanation for the stand-down of security forces in the face of numerous threats to Congress from fascistic forces mobilized by former President Donald Trump, the Democratic chairs of the two committees suggested a narrative of “intelligence” or “communications” failures, which began to fall apart even as the hearing progressed.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... r-f24.html
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158308

We've all seen the photo comparisons of the level of security at the Capitol during the summer's BLM protests versus Jan 6th, and it's plain as the nose on your face that this was deliberate, not a mistake, not a miscommunication, but a deliberate attempt to put lawmakers and the next in succession for the Presidency in mortal danger in an attempt to install Trump as the leader. Not that I love those lawmakers, but you gotta work with the hand you're dealt.



http://disq.us/p/2fcf38v
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158327
Rancid wrote:
Believe it or not. Trumpism is an attempt to topple that plutocratic hold.


Rancid wrote:
No, and answering no to your question does not mean I support the Plutocracy.



You're saying that Trumpism is anti-plutocracy, yet Trump is himself wealthy and Trumpism was about holding onto the presidency despite Trump losing the presidential vote.

Trump *encouraged* the rioters to forestall the formal transfer of power to the new president:



Wednesday, January 6



12:00 p.m.: President Trump begins his over one-hour speech.[30] He repeats allegations that the election was stolen, criticizing Vice President Mike Pence by name a half-dozen times, accusing fellow Republicans of not doing enough to back up his allegations, and stating that he would walk with the crowd to the Capitol, though he retires to the White House immediately after the speech.[33]



So it sounds more like Trump wanted the 'plutocracy' (U.S. government) for himself, in a *dictatorial* way.

You support Trump and Trumpism, which was all about *seizing* the plutocracy, and *not* aiming to dissolve it in any way.



Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

The following article is a broad timeline of the course of events surrounding the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, by rioters supporting United States President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election. Pro-Trump rioters stormed the United States Capitol after assembling on the Ellipse of the Capitol complex for the "Save America March".[1][2]

Following the rally, President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and several Republican members of Congress addressed the crowd, repeating unfounded claims of electoral fraud affecting the 2020 election outcome and encouraging supporters to "fight like hell" to "take back our country" and suggesting a march towards the Capitol.[3][4] The demonstrations turned violent when attendees breached multiple police perimeters, and occupied, vandalized,[5][6] and ransacked[7] parts of the building for several hours.[7][8] Five people—including Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick—died over the course of the events and dozens more were seriously injured.[9][10][11]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... es_Capitol
User avatar
By Rancid
#15158333
ckaihatsu wrote:You're saying that Trumpism is anti-plutocracy, yet Trump is himself wealthy and Trumpism was about holding onto the presidency despite Trump losing the presidential vote.

Trump *encouraged* the rioters to forestall the formal transfer of power to the new president:


Correct, that's the paradox I have pointed out on these forums for months now. Trump followers are basically confused and stupid. Just look at the dumbass Trumpsters on pofo like blackjack. Decades of conservative propaganda has left them with their brains spinning, they do not know up from down anymore. To use a tired phrase, they have been gaslighted like hell for literally decades.

I don't want to rehash this point with a long post, so I'll try to keep in short and say this:
Trumpsters constantly talk about how they hate the establishment (i.e. Plutocracy). How they want to "take back the government" (from the plutocracy) or whatever. However, at the same time, they foolishly believe that a Plutocrat (Trump) will help them do that. Yea... they are fucking morons.

trump is also a Kleptocrat at that. :lol:
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158334
Rancid wrote:
Correct, that's the paradox I have pointed out on these forums for months now. Trump followers are basically confused and stupid. Just look at the dumbass Trumpsters on pofo like blackjack. Decades of conservative propaganda has left them with their brains spinning, they do not know up from down anymore. To use a tired phrase, they have been gaslighted like hell for literally decades.

I don't want to rehash this point with a long post, so I'll try to keep in short and say this:
Trumpsters constantly talk about how they hate the establishment (i.e. Plutocracy). How they want to "take back the government" (from the plutocracy) or whatever. However, at the same time, they foolishly believe that a Plutocrat (Trump) will help them do that. Yea... they are fucking morons.



You may want to clarify *your own* position here, since you're distancing yourself from Trump supporters with your latest statement, but earlier you said this:


Rancid wrote:
Believe it or not. Trumpism is an attempt to topple that plutocratic hold.



So is Trump anti-establishment, or not? Initially you said he was, but now you're agreeing with me that he's just being opportunistic, for power.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15158335
ckaihatsu wrote:you're distancing yourself from Trump supporters

:lol: ok bro.... :lol:

Maybe I'm a closeted Trumpster or something. :lol:

ckaihatsu wrote:So is Trump anti-establishment, or not? Initially you said he was, but now you're agreeing with me that he's just being opportunistic, for power.


When I said "Trumpism" that was basically a pseudonym for "Trump supporters". Trump supporters are anti-establishment. They are against the current plutocrat ruling class. Trumpism, is made up by the supporters themselves, not Trump. Trumpism cannot exist without supporters.

Trump himself, is just an opportunist, as you say. He's just playing the Trump supporters for his personal gain.

So it does offend your sense of humanism. I ju[…]

@noemon Don't be silly. Alexei Navalny is a v[…]

Identity Politics

I'm referring to Ancient and Orthodox Judaism, […]

European Super League

The foreign billionaires who own top clubs have p[…]