4 ms·
We're not living in a democracy. We're living in an oligarchy. Of course those at the top won't get punished. That class never gets punished. Who else is gonna
by p0wn 5y ago
We're not living in a democracy. We're living in an oligarchy. Of course those at the top won't get punished. That class never gets punished. Who else is gonna fund all those old decrepit bickerers in Washington?
- CoastalCoder 5y agoIf we're being serious, I'd say we're living in a hybrid system with competing sources of power: oligarchy, indirect democracy, direct democracy, guild system, etc.
- tigerlily 5y agoSounds much like a plutocracy.
- emodendroket 5y agoI agree, though the relative strength of these factions seems different from a few decades ago.
- triactual 5y agoSo oligarchy-dominant?
- datavirtue 5y agoI saw a documentary on Putin's rise to power that included (others do not) coverage of how the oligarchs in Russia (seven of them) basically set or determined how Putin would govern. They wanted a democracy friendly to their interests (capitalism) as the post-Yelstin era was beginning. It was quite revealing how Putin was subject to them and it reminded me a lot of America and our leaders and how they cowar to business leaders (and Trump's association with Russians). They agreed to stay out of politics if Putin stayed out of commerce. The oligarchs then divided up various industries among themselves. In the end, it left the impression on me that Putin is just a player or a puppet who owes a lot of people.
- jimmyearlcarter 5y agoI think thats fair. I mean we live in a system of systems, and there are various forms of organization at each and every level. However, if we're being serious, the most important systems (health care, military, mass media, telecom,...) that effect each and every one of us are obviously oligarchic, formed in part by massive authoritarian constructs (modern corporations).
- meheleventyone 5y agoTo be fair you can describe most governments that way, even the totalitarian. It’s always a mix but the interesting question is the current distribution which is what I believe the OP was trying to voice.
- bush-bby 5y agoPlease don’t take this personally, but fuck I hate this painfully common assertion. We most absolutely live in a democracy. However sometimes it’s easy to get confused as to what that means. Democrats (as opposed to autocrats or oligarchs) must behave in ways that will get them the votes they need to stay in power. Is there anyone in particular enabling this? No. If there was, they either would not get re-elected, or constituents have decided that this is not enough a transgression to vote for someone else. Maybe a case could be made for lack of knowledge or high ignorance amongst the common voter contributing to poor outcome of democratic processes, but to say we don’t have a democracy is irrational. No one forces you to vote for anyone. You don’t like someone in power? Get rid of them! You can do that here…but unfortunately one of the benefits of democracy, is you need a group to enact change and policy, not an autocratic individual.
- Guest42 5y agoBy singling out Democrats, are you claiming that the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson haven’t influenced the government in ways that are beyond the scope of what citizens should be capable of?
- TchoBeer 5y agoGP didn't mean Democrats as in the party, but rather Democrats as in the people in charge under a democracy, i.e. Democrats as opposed to Oligarchs
- netizen-936824 5y agoThey mean "democrat" as the people who practice democracy, not the US political party
- KiranRao0 5y agoWhile I can't be sure, I believe the commenter is referring to "democrats" (an actor in a democratic government) and not "Democrats" (actors within a political party in the US). Correct me if I'm wrong.
- nlittlepoole 5y ago