portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war


Who will you vote for in 2004?
Its looking like some pretty slim pickings for all of you folks at this point. I'd really like to see all of you anarchists, hippies, gutter punks, suburban whities, socialists, liberals and commies across the nation come up with a decent canidate that could actually get elected. From the looks of it the declared canidates in the Democratic Party don't look too desirable to most of you folks because as it stands from your perspective they really aren't much different from whos in power now. Lets look at what we have here:

Democratic Party
1. Lieberman: Well, seeing as most of you have quite a negative opinion of Israel and he was all for the war against Iraq I'm thinking he won't be getting many of your votes. 2. Kerry: I'm thinking the ghosts of those Vietnamese civilians he greased will continue to haunt this fellow not to mention a myriad of other problems that will result in an unpunched chad. 3. Some politician from the south that looks like a wax statue: Not too sure about this guy but he looks like old money and that can't be good.

Green Party
To tell you the truth I looked all over their site and can't find a single canidate for President there.

Instead of all this infighting, ego battles about Pink Codes and wasting valuable time and resources protesting a war that is all but over why don't you organize and figure out how to elect some people to public office? Most of you seem committed to your individual causes and some of you have some good ideas and good intentions but you lack an overall direction thats for sure. I'm sure people will come off all negative and tell me that this is a rigged two party system but if enough of you were to write in a vote for someone this would count as a legal election. Of course, first you have to find someone which in of itself is enough of a task to begin with. Who knows, maybe all of you should vote for Martin Sheen or Sean Penn...
PLUTOCRACY 2004! 10.Apr.2003 23:40

Dean Kerry Bu$h Gore

plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996


n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
corporate police state


"Plutocracy" Defined

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)


See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
Go to the Essay on Politics
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
Return to the PL Site Map

Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy

The Plutocratic Presidency, 17892003

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics


Howard Dean 10.Apr.2003 23:53


Howard Dean is the best candidate who is running for Prez. He was the governor of vermont and a doctor. He is greta on healthcare issues and signed Vermont's civil unions for gays and lesbians bill into a law. He is also very anti war and the only candidate who is progressive and creating some noise in the media.

to Andrew-- 11.Apr.2003 00:13


I take your word that Howard Dean is a pretty good 'person' compared to other runners, and has a strong campaign agenda.

(I have a similar admiration for some--but not 100%--of the work of Ralph Nader.)

my question is--

do either of these kinds of candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of victory? No matter what 'party' they run under? Dean seems to have little chance of being the 'Democrat' nominee.

especially with the American sElection 'system' itself so egregiously compromised today (computerised machines, voter intimidation, corporate media biases + brainwashed voters, etc.)?

News Flash 11.Apr.2003 03:14


There wont be a 2004 election, there will be another major terrorist attack and Bush will suspend them for "security reasons". Don't believe me? Just watch it unfold.

well... 11.Apr.2003 08:23

this thing here

i'm more worried about wide-spread voting problems. i think the partisan atmosphere during the 2004 election is going to really, really intense. there's alot riding on getting bush the hell out, and there's alot riding on keeping bush in. so there's gonna be alot of people on both sides thinking they can do anything to "ensure" victory for their side, no matter how many laws they have to break. maybe we should seriously consider having international election monitors coming in and keeping track, cause it's going to be intense.

international elections monitors 11.Apr.2003 10:06

republic of cascadia citizen

yes! i have thought about this before. we need to have international 3rd party elections monitors at every polling booth in america, alongside citizen monitors who will watch and count every single vote. if we shine a massive international spotlight so that the rats have nowhere to hide, then bush will go crawling away with his tail between his legs. i hear the wave building offshore right now. of course as someone posted above, it is entirely possible to see our elections suspended because of "national security", but in that case they will have one more guerilla fighter here in the republic of cascadia. so lets organize!

sigh 11.Apr.2003 10:06


I really liked Howard Dean until I saw him on Meet the Press. Yikes! He backpeddled and hedged around issues. He sounded like every other politician.

He kept saying things like, "I'll have to hone my response once I really get into the race." Read: I'll have to be so wishy-washy that no one can peg me on any issue.


I want Nader again. I'll vote. I can't vote for Leiberman. There's just no way.

Nope not these idiots either. 11.Apr.2003 11:40


Ok, Kerry can kill babies and get away with it. remember being a liberal means never having to say your sorry, or wrong.

Maybe the Plutocracy cut and paste jackoff can run as a candidate. He has no imagination, he only changes to photos he cuts and pastes. We see this stupid post every two weeks or so.

I'm sure whoever runs, the maggots on this website will justify his lost as another election stolen because they didn't get there way.

well, as long as it sticks a weed up their asses, I'm happy with it.

You forgot Kucinich in 2004 11.Apr.2003 13:23


Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich from Ohio announced a few months ago. He's probably one of the biggest voices out of Washington against all the bad stuff the GW Bush Administration is doing. I encourage everything to check out his website.