8 ms·

I always found it interesting how the US media always characterizes foreign (especially slavic Easter European) business people as 'oligarchs' and uses the term

by Jerry2 7y ago

I always found it interesting how the US media always characterizes foreign (especially slavic Easter European) business people as 'oligarchs' and uses the term to demean them. Yet they never use the same term for Western business people and politicians who engage in the exact same corrupt practices (and often times on a much greater scale). Fair has an article on this [1]. [1] https://fair.org/home/russia-has-oligarchs-the-us-has-businessmen/ https://fair.org/home/russia-has-oligarchs-the-us-has-busine...

disabled 7y ago
So true! :-) Oligarchy is basically what the US is.
- olivermarks 7y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 'Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy' 2014
ttul 7y ago
Oligarch = Rentier Capitalist? I think the distinction is that in Eastern Europe, the politics is literally corrupt. In the US, bags of money aren’t used. It’s actually legitimized by loose campaign finance laws, so wire transfers are just fine!
klaudius 7y ago
Just like the word 'regime' is used for governments you don't like.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- OJFord 7y ago
  And 'agenda'. Both totally innocuous, until you adopt a certain accusatory tone, and suddenly it's 'wooh, they're under a regime, bet there's some sort of agenda'! Meanwhile the speaker is on the '5-2' regime and printing off the agenda for their 9 o'clock.
PNWChris 7y ago
My understanding is that many of the oligarchs quite literally stole what they have during the 1990s free-for-all (Soviet collapse). This is opposed to many western business people who won by making better products and generally advancing our standard of living. Whether they deserve the astonishing wealth they have is up for debate (I believe in a wealth tax), but but at least they did something for it! The Wikipedia page says roughly that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch The Wikipedia for Gazprom has a great timeline of how one such business became an elaborate exercise in theft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#History
- toyg 7y ago
  > many of the oligarchs quite literally stole what they have during the 1990s Yeah well, it's not like people like Richard Branson didn't do the same (to this very day)... Throughout the ages, wealth tends to be opportunistically accrued, to put it mildly. Steinbeck wrote something about that. It's just that we are somewhat closer to the age of "primary enrichment" when it comes to Russia, whereas we've kinda forgotten our own robber barons.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I'm unware of stories where Richard Branson, or any other present-day British or American billionaire, got their wealth by capturing a business as it was spun off from government control. Private corrections companies are the closest example I can think of, and I don't think anyone would accuse the media of being friendly towards them.
    - rscho 7y ago
      State company privatizations are a form of theft. Not with guns, but same results. The value is such that no one could normally buy the infrastructure, yet such infrastructure is often sold for pennies.
      - 7y ago
chapium 7y ago
Its because oligarch has a very specific meaning; someone who has a large share of a market and there are only a few other competitors. Oligarchs exist in eastern europe due to how industry was broken away from the state when the state released control over it. Selling off access to the industry ultimately resulted in a small number of powerful players in control. There is no problem with NYT or other media outlets calling them exactly what they are.
- dmix 7y ago
  It's basically modified form of communist centralized control of the economy and closer to feudalism than it is American style crony capitalism and regulatory capture. Although I can see how someone could mistake the two, the former is far more obvious form of corruption, while the latter is wrapped in language like 'saving local x industries against foreign competition' or well intentioned liberal equalization that always somehow ends up benefiting the politically well connected over the wider society, trading one problem for worse ones.
  - asjw 7y ago
    USA is a worse oligarchy than USSR ever was. https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/US-Territory-Divided.png https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/US-Territory...
- QuesnayJr 7y ago
  Your first sentence is the definition of "oligopoly", not "oligarchy". Oligarchy is when you have a large share of political power not marker power (though they can go together).
- repolfx 7y ago
  The NYT appears to be going after Eastern European politicians here, which is surely deliberate as they tend to be conservative and against immigration, so the ideological enemies of the New York set. But it seems they got distracted along the way by the shocking discovery that the EU is opaque and corrupt. The most interesting thing about this story isn't that some Hungarian academic thinks he got fired for criticising the government (i.e. his employer) but rather, that the New York Times' Brussels correspondent has never previously investigated the EU itself.
paulie_a 7y ago
Oligarchs are generally ex kgb and where heavily involved with the Russian mafia. Or were directly to apart of it and then outright stole the industry they were wanted as long as they didn't talk smack
coldtea 7y ago
"Oligarch" and "Plutocrat" is often a propaganda term.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
roywiggins 7y ago
"Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. They're not rich because they built a company and bought their way into political power (which is how many Western billionaires are made) but because they had political connections and used them to capture state assets. The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power. In the West, it can end up being the other way around, with governments becoming instruments of corporate power. Whether it makes sense to call both kinds of wealthy people "oligarchs" is up to you, I guess.
- freeflight 7y ago
  > "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0]. That's why the US can also be considered an oligarchy [1]. [0] https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
  - clairity 7y ago
    maybe this plutocracy/oligarchy framing will break out and overtake the identity politics so dominating the culture (in the US) right now (hoping, but not hopeful). the problem is not the color of your skin but the imbalance in power caused by many, many decades (5 centuries for some!) of intentional opportunity disparity, with wealth concentration as the metric. a functioning democracy relies on dispersion of power, which is why we have separation of powers in the constitution in the first place. the other critical component of a democracy is having an informed and active citizenry. the blame for the current dysfunction lies with all citizens, not just our plutocrats and politicians (although they certainly shoulder a larger proportion). sometimes we need to lean into adversity to maintain our freedoms, rather than hoping some hero will come along and shield us from it.
war1025 7y ago
The one I get a kick out of is "It's terrible that a foreign government would meddle in our elections" when that is literally what we have been doing all around the world for the last century.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
Have you considered that they're all oligarchs?
TomMckenny 7y ago
So you're saying: 1)US corruption is as bad as Russia and the other Eastern European dictatorships and.... 2)...this excuses the appalling autocratic behavior of Orban I would like to see fans of a US leader who has been caught in some scandal try to say "but the Easten European dictators do it" I suggest that these points are not only completely fallacious but actually the exact kind of distraction that oligarchs promulgate to keep their power: rather than discuss their own oppressive corruption, which the public might do something about, find something foreign to make people mad at. And apparently it's trivial to push these intentional distractions to the top of discussions and prevent even the first steps of removing the Kleptarch's mob.
loriverkutya 7y ago
Hungarians are not really slavic.
rolltiide 7y ago
I use oligarch for descriptive purposes and clout.

by Jerry2 7y ago

disabled 7y ago

So true! :-) Oligarchy is basically what the US is.

olivermarks 7y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 'Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy' 2014

ttul 7y ago

Oligarch = Rentier Capitalist? I think the distinction is that in Eastern Europe, the politics is literally corrupt. In the US, bags of money aren’t used. It’s actually legitimized by loose campaign finance laws, so wire transfers are just fine!

klaudius 7y ago

Just like the word 'regime' is used for governments you don't like.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
OJFord 7y ago
And 'agenda'. Both totally innocuous, until you adopt a certain accusatory tone, and suddenly it's 'wooh, they're under a regime, bet there's some sort of agenda'! Meanwhile the speaker is on the '5-2' regime and printing off the agenda for their 9 o'clock.

PNWChris 7y ago

My understanding is that many of the oligarchs quite literally stole what they have during the 1990s free-for-all (Soviet collapse). This is opposed to many western business people who won by making better products and generally advancing our standard of living. Whether they deserve the astonishing wealth they have is up for debate (I believe in a wealth tax), but but at least they did something for it! The Wikipedia page says roughly that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch The Wikipedia for Gazprom has a great timeline of how one such business became an elaborate exercise in theft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#History

toyg 7y ago
> many of the oligarchs quite literally stole what they have during the 1990s Yeah well, it's not like people like Richard Branson didn't do the same (to this very day)... Throughout the ages, wealth tends to be opportunistically accrued, to put it mildly. Steinbeck wrote something about that. It's just that we are somewhat closer to the age of "primary enrichment" when it comes to Russia, whereas we've kinda forgotten our own robber barons.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I'm unware of stories where Richard Branson, or any other present-day British or American billionaire, got their wealth by capturing a business as it was spun off from government control. Private corrections companies are the closest example I can think of, and I don't think anyone would accuse the media of being friendly towards them.
  - rscho 7y ago
    State company privatizations are a form of theft. Not with guns, but same results. The value is such that no one could normally buy the infrastructure, yet such infrastructure is often sold for pennies.
    - 7y ago

chapium 7y ago

Its because oligarch has a very specific meaning; someone who has a large share of a market and there are only a few other competitors. Oligarchs exist in eastern europe due to how industry was broken away from the state when the state released control over it. Selling off access to the industry ultimately resulted in a small number of powerful players in control. There is no problem with NYT or other media outlets calling them exactly what they are.

dmix 7y ago
It's basically modified form of communist centralized control of the economy and closer to feudalism than it is American style crony capitalism and regulatory capture. Although I can see how someone could mistake the two, the former is far more obvious form of corruption, while the latter is wrapped in language like 'saving local x industries against foreign competition' or well intentioned liberal equalization that always somehow ends up benefiting the politically well connected over the wider society, trading one problem for worse ones.
- asjw 7y ago
  USA is a worse oligarchy than USSR ever was. https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/US-Territory-Divided.png https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/US-Territory...
QuesnayJr 7y ago
Your first sentence is the definition of "oligopoly", not "oligarchy". Oligarchy is when you have a large share of political power not marker power (though they can go together).
repolfx 7y ago
The NYT appears to be going after Eastern European politicians here, which is surely deliberate as they tend to be conservative and against immigration, so the ideological enemies of the New York set. But it seems they got distracted along the way by the shocking discovery that the EU is opaque and corrupt. The most interesting thing about this story isn't that some Hungarian academic thinks he got fired for criticising the government (i.e. his employer) but rather, that the New York Times' Brussels correspondent has never previously investigated the EU itself.

paulie_a 7y ago

Oligarchs are generally ex kgb and where heavily involved with the Russian mafia. Or were directly to apart of it and then outright stole the industry they were wanted as long as they didn't talk smack

coldtea 7y ago

"Oligarch" and "Plutocrat" is often a propaganda term.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

roywiggins 7y ago

"Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. They're not rich because they built a company and bought their way into political power (which is how many Western billionaires are made) but because they had political connections and used them to capture state assets. The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power. In the West, it can end up being the other way around, with governments becoming instruments of corporate power. Whether it makes sense to call both kinds of wealthy people "oligarchs" is up to you, I guess.

freeflight 7y ago
> "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices. Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0]. That's why the US can also be considered an oligarchy [1]. [0] https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/ [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
- clairity 7y ago
  maybe this plutocracy/oligarchy framing will break out and overtake the identity politics so dominating the culture (in the US) right now (hoping, but not hopeful). the problem is not the color of your skin but the imbalance in power caused by many, many decades (5 centuries for some!) of intentional opportunity disparity, with wealth concentration as the metric. a functioning democracy relies on dispersion of power, which is why we have separation of powers in the constitution in the first place. the other critical component of a democracy is having an informed and active citizenry. the blame for the current dysfunction lies with all citizens, not just our plutocrats and politicians (although they certainly shoulder a larger proportion). sometimes we need to lean into adversity to maintain our freedoms, rather than hoping some hero will come along and shield us from it.

war1025 7y ago

The one I get a kick out of is "It's terrible that a foreign government would meddle in our elections" when that is literally what we have been doing all around the world for the last century.

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

Have you considered that they're all oligarchs?

TomMckenny 7y ago

So you're saying: 1)US corruption is as bad as Russia and the other Eastern European dictatorships and.... 2)...this excuses the appalling autocratic behavior of Orban I would like to see fans of a US leader who has been caught in some scandal try to say "but the Easten European dictators do it" I suggest that these points are not only completely fallacious but actually the exact kind of distraction that oligarchs promulgate to keep their power: rather than discuss their own oppressive corruption, which the public might do something about, find something foreign to make people mad at. And apparently it's trivial to push these intentional distractions to the top of discussions and prevent even the first steps of removing the Kleptarch's mob.

loriverkutya 7y ago

Hungarians are not really slavic.

rolltiide 7y ago

I use oligarch for descriptive purposes and clout.