![]() 99.54.137.200 ( talk) 08:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Reply Is this a comparison between Platonic idealism and Platonic realism? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 20:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Reply Sounds more like Platonic epistemology Truthiness. Post- Left–right politics, new Extremism versus new Centrism ( Paul Collier) of Civilization Ecosystem Services support. Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Reply Benito Mussolini admired by Fred C. Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Reply Your's is one voice, but is it in the wilderness? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Reply 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) Reply Does this mean anything to anyone else. ![]() None of the present disambiguations at superclass fit your definition. 99.54.141.3 ( talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Reply 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. Transnational Capitalists do not necessarily need or even desire Democracy. Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Reply 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". 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. 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. contribs) 21:41, (UTC) Reply Multiple voting.Preceding unsigned comment added by VincentJS ( talk 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. From that point of view the pejorative connotation attached to "plutocratic" is subject to debate. 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. 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. The point of contention seems to be whether political, judicial and sociological systems have objective criteria defining actions as being "fundamentaly plutocratic" or not. 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. 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. 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. 37 Civil oligarchy according to Winters.36 Off-topic section: oligarchy ≠ plutocracy.34 Labor unions as contributing to oligarchy? Not according to Gilens and Page.29 Add United States of America to the list of Plutocratic regimes?.28 Ontological bias in Modern Politics section.27 Deletion of the Dennis Gilbert quote. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |