The pejorative term “kleptocracy” is applied to a government tainted by widespread greed and corruption and headed by a person who has used the government for personal enrichment and gain. While the suffix “-ocracy” often implies a form of government, kleptocracies are not forms of government, but rather governments so fundamentally corrupt that they are difficult, if not impossible, to salvage.Most commonly, this situation arises in authoritarian governments.

Such governments lend themselves to corruption because there is little accountability and the head of the government usually appoints friends, family members, and close associates to key positions in the government in order to retain control. This sets up a ruling class, and with no accountability, members of the government can freely abuse government funds.In a kleptocracy, most government revenues wind up in the hands of officials, and are not applied to public works projects, and other activities. Are often dysfunctional as a result of limited funding and being headed by people who lack qualifications. Aid organizations attempting to provide assistance in the country may be frustrated by seeing all the aid diverted for personal profit, with national leaders selling humanitarian aid to the highest bidder instead of allowing it to be distributed for the good of the populace. Is commonly necessary to accomplish tasks ranging from getting a building permit to opening a.

The more money people have, the higher they can rise in the kleptocracy, by greasing the way with high ranking officials, and this in turn generates more money for them as they accept bribes and gifts from people fighting for a position in the government. It is not uncommon to see the justice system break down as people simply refuse to attend their own trials or their way out of legal penalties.For the average citizen, living in a kleptocracy can be marked with extreme hardship. Lacking clout and funding, people may have difficulty completing basic tasks. The lack of public services can result in problems like uncollected garbage, unpaved and poorly maintained roads, limited access to health care, and other issues. Citizens who protest government policy or attempt to draw attention to the problems with the government may become political prisoners and can face penalties like execution for treason. Free elections are usually not present in a kleptocracy and some nations may not even bother to hold sham elections, allowing leaders to remain in place for decades and to pass power on to their children. Evidence that the U.S.A.

Kleptocratic definition, a government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal; rule by a thief or thieves.

Is a kleptocracy is all around us. America is a kleptocratic Gulag state by any meaningful comparison with those other countries you mention in your article.The innocents projects in the USA is for the wrongfully accused by the criminal justice system. The latter is stealing wealth and making a mockery of the criminal justice system across America.The U.S. Financial crisis resulted in trillions of dollars having been stolen in the form of added government debt and the resulting loss of the population’s assets.

The immense human toll this has taken warrants being called an atrocity while none of the criminal financial ruling class has been prosecuted.The U.S. Kleptocracy’s solution was to punish. The victims and reward the criminals by stealing trillions of increased debt that was then accessed by the financial institutions that had perpetrated the crimes and hardships. Crime really does pay, in trillions! It's justification for force feeding trillions into the feudal financial lords is that government and people are just too stupid manage their affairs if the funds were directed to the masses instead.The U.S.

Has 25 percent of the world’s prison inmates and only 5 percent of the world's population. Inmate totals exceed peak Soviet Gulag inmate totals. If Texas were a country, it would have the fourth largest prison population on earth.The U.S. Makes widespread use of prisoners as slave labor (according to CNBC) to the point of putting legit labor based businesses out of existence.They have more military spending than the total spent by the rest of the developed world combined on military, etc. It is physically impossible for the U.S.

Military to spend that much! Obviously graft and fraud is rampant.All the while unemployment is rampant, the infrastructure is collapsing, pensions are inadequate, nearly 50 million Americans regularly go hungry, and they have a failed education system with the lowest SAT scores in 40 years, etc.Revoking the laws of our forefathers that were put in place to prevent another massive collapse like the great depression was a huge mistake that has not been corrected. This proves that we live a corrupt, deluded academic world that is bound to repeat such errors of the past.The U.S. Government has proven that it is so fundamentally corrupt that is difficult, if not impossible, to salvage. @titans62 - That is an interesting point.

I think it shows how much we need to be aware of different cultures when we are interacting with them. At least, has a pretty poor track record of instituting good governments in countries after it leaves. Part of that is often that other countries' customs aren't like America's.That's not to say a kleptocratic government is good. I think it is pretty well established that a kleptocracy is counterproductive to success, but maybe there are times when things that seem to go against western ethics are okay, just because that's the way things are in other places.

@matthewc23 - I think it's an important point to note, however, that not all governments that take bribes are necessarily kleptocracies or corrupt in general. Bribes are just part of Asian business culture in general. The main example I can think of is Japan.Whenever the government accepts bids for certain jobs or enters into trading agreements with other countries, it is usually expected that there will be a customary bribes associated with the offer. It doesn't mean the government is corrupt, that is just how things have evolved. This causes a lot of problems when western countries try to make deals with Asian countries. Our laws say it is illegal to make 'under the table' payments to other countries, but they may take it as a sign of disrespect. I would be willing to guess that most kleptocracies are very centralized governments meaning that the president and his closest partners make most of the rules that benefit themselves.I think that is one of the benefits of democracies or republics.

If you are able to spread the power of the government out over lots of people, the opportunities for bribes are still there, but they will have much less effect.You also have the trade-offs between the benefit of taking a bribe and the cost of it being discovered and you getting in trouble. In the governments with kleptocracies, people have no disincentive to taking bribes because it is widely accepted. I think it's an important point to note that the governments of kleptocracies don't necessarily have to be ruled by communists or dictators or any of the other corrupt governments we usually think of.I just finished a report looking at the effects of illegal logging in Southeast Asia. A lot of those governments are very corrupt and loggers give bribes for the rights to different forests. The old government of Indonesia that lasted from the 1960s to the 1990s fit all the descriptions from the article.

The president's whole goal was the further the economics of the country at whatever expense to the environment and indigenous tribes.Luckily, Indonesia overthrew their leader, and they are taking a lot of steps toward fixing the problems he caused. There is still a lot of corruption in the rest of Southeast Asia, though. In the most dire of circumstances, sometimes playing the kleptocracy game and engaging in corruption is the only way to stay alive - in North Korea, smuggling goods (and people) across the border to China requires greasing the palms of the soldiers in the area to get them to look the other way - the situation is so desperate there that even the army is barely getting fed.I think that being a kleptocracy sometimes is a necessary evil when you think about how overwhelming being under a government with complete control, and who don't have to answer to anyone but themselves. The people within the system then really need to do what they can to get. I think there are a lot of countries out there that would technically fall under the kleptocracy definition, even if their governments are supposedly democratic. I've spent a lot of time in Asia, and in countries like Thailand money really greases the wheels to get things done.This is especially true of dealing with the police. There are set bribes in place, and because of the breakdowns in government, and the underpaid police force, you are left with a system ripe for extortion.

A famous example of this is driving without a valid license, slipping a bribe under your ID will generally see you on your way with little hassle if the cops stop you. @alisha- You're right, they're both from ancient Greek. Kleptocracy's literal meaning is 'rule by thieves. '-klept' in ancient Greek means 'thief' and '-klepto' means 'to steal.' Kleptocracy comes from the word 'Kleptocracia' which means 'the rule by thieves' or a 'government of thieves.'

The word has maintained it's original definition because in Ancient Greece, kleptocracy was referred to a Greek government run by greedy and corrupt politicians. It's the same now. In a kleptocracy, political leaders embezzle government funds and use it for themselves, just like the politicians in an ancient Greek kleptocracy. I think that the problems mentioned in this article are present in many different types of governments across the world. Some would even say that our government is affected by corruption.

But when I hear the term kleptocracy, the kind of government that comes to mind is the governments in many African countries that are plagued by conflict.I read about Somalia in class last week and the Somali government fits the description of a kleptocratic government exactly. The government there is deeply corrupted and doesn't even have full control over the country. There are a militias that maintain control over certain regions and there is no Rule of Law whatsoever. The country is mainly undeveloped and there is.

Download: The game in installer form. Dark deception game. Install: The.exe file. Wait till complete installation. Accept The terms and conditions for smooth installation.

Plutocracy means ‘rule by the wealthy.’ It’s when a small group consisting of the wealthiest people in a society rule by virtue of their wealth.Plutocracy is a self-reinforcing system. That is, once a group of wealthy people are in charge, they can use their wealth and political power to change the rules (laws and systems) to make sure that they only get more wealth and power, never less.Plutocracy isn’t exactly a political philosophy, since no one defends it. The word is used as a pejorative, or insult, to describe a system that nearly everyone agrees is unjust.II. Plutocracy vs.

OligarchyOligarchy is rule by an elite few. Thus, plutocracy is one form of oligarchy.

However, oligarchy is a broader term; it can describe any sort of ruling elite minority.Examples include:. Aristocratic rule, or rule by social elites.

We often confuse aristocracy with wealthy, since the aristocracy tend to have wealth. But not all people from prominent families remain wealthy, and not all wealthy people come from aristocratic families, especially in America. The aristocracy, like the wealthy, tend to hang onto their power, since they usually have advantages and opportunities, but the ideas of aristocracy and plutocracy are actually very different; originally (starting with the Greeks) the aristocracy were thought of as the best qualified people to rule, because they came from good families and received good educations.

Only in recent times, have we stopped viewing the aristocracy as superior people, in our society—at least not as much as people used to. Plutocracy is very different because it’s only about having wealth, not belonging to a supposedly “better” class of people.

Theocracy, or rule by the clergy. The governing elites may be religious authorities such as priests or mullahs who rule in accordance with their interpretation of religious law. Technocracy, or rule on the basis of technical and skill. A technocratic country is ruled by skilled experts of any kind, such as people with degrees in finance and law; however, these days when people say ‘technocratic’ they usually mean people ruling through technological resources and know-how.

Although people use the word ‘technocrat’ loosely to describe any person in authority who relies on tech, traditionally technocracy is characterized by unelected technocratic authorities. If we elect a president with technical expertise, that’s not an oligarchy — unless the president seizes more power and gives it to similarly-trained colleagues without elections. A technocracy is technically a society where people rule by virtue of their technical know-how, but you will hear people use it to refer to any kind of technology-centered governance.Like “plutocracy,” the word “oligarchy” generally has a strong negative connotation. Few people openly support having an oligarchy. However, plenty of people have defended aristocratic, theocratic, and technocratic systems—and some still do. Such people often deny that their favored system is a form of oligarchy.

However, all these systems are “rule by the few,” and therefore oligarchy, even if you defend them. That may not be a problem for you if you are willing to defend oligarchy (and many people do).III. Quotes About Plutocracy Quote 1“‘What would happen if someone were to choose the captains of ships by their wealth, refusing to entrust the ship to a poor person even if he was a better captain?’‘They would make a poor voyage of it.’‘And isn’t the same true of the rule of anything else whatsoever?’‘I suppose so.’‘Except a city? Or does it also apply to a city?’‘To a city most of all, since it’s the most difficult and most important kind of rule.’” (, The Republic)Over 2,000 years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato developed some of the first arguments against plutocracy. Clearly, Plato thought it was worth his while to write these arguments down, which implies that someone in his society was pushing for plutocracy.

We can probably infer that wealthy Athenians were trying to gain political power in addition to their wealth, and that Plato was trying to undermine their efforts using philosophical arguments. Quote 2“The popular conception of capitalism is posed abstractly as the freedom of the individual from government control. But what it meant in politics a century later, and still means today, is the freedom to accumulate wealth without social or democratic responsibilities and license to buy the political system right out from everyone else.” (Bill Moyers, For America’s Sake)Probably no one in the media today is more associated with the word “plutocracy” than Bill Moyers. He’s spent the last several years trying to convince people that America is losing its status as a and sliding into plutocracy instead. In this quote, he argues that this is allowed to happen because many well-meaning Americans think that everyone has a right to endless accumulation of wealth, a right that society as a whole should not interfere with. Moyers, on the other hand, sees this as a cover-story for a more sinister power-grab (see section VI for more on this controversy).IV. The History and Importance of PlutocracySome people imagine that plutocracy is the oldest form of government in the world; they imagine that our ancient ancestors, long before the modern age of science, capitalism, and democracy, were ruled by powerful, wealthy leaders who could do whatever they wanted because they had all the resources.This is partly a myth.

Pre-capitalist and non-capitalist societies had or have various forms of social organization, some based on wealth, but not all. For example, there have been many tribal societies in which the leader is the person who gives away the most, not the person who owns the most. For example, the Anglo-Saxons leaders had to earn their followers through generosity and by leading men successfully in battle. Saxon kings gave the spoils of battle to their followers and kept little for themselves — and what they did keep were usually gifts from others in the tribe.But there were many other forms of economy in Europe (and everywhere else) before trade naturally evolved into the competitive market-based system that we live in today. The development of capitalism differs most from other systems in that everyone has equal rights to own, buy, and sell goods.

Therefore, under capitalism, any individual may be able to acquire enough wealth to influence politics in their favor. Thus, while this system creates the most opportunities to make wealth, it also opens the door to plutocracy (see section VI).

And this has happened in many places; Florence is a notable example, as the incredibly wealthy Medici family effectively ruled the city for much of the 15th and 16th centuries. Even in supposedly non-capitalist nations, such as modern China, capitalism has enabled many people to gain power.Today, plutocracy is hotly-debated—the question of whether one nation or another is becoming plutocratic — a concern not only in capitalist countries like the UK and the USA, but also in post-Communist countries like Russia and China, and neutral countries like India.

People are justly concerned about the fact that a tiny percentage of the population has the vast majority of the wealth, and obviously this gives them political power, and it does get used. The questions are only whether these wealthy elite really can or do use their wealth to rule the world in general, and whether we have the right or the need to oppose them. Many people believe that some plutocracy is a fair trade in exchange for economic development.

Also, many people believe that those who become wealthy through business are inherently superior and therefore well-suited to rule. Needless to say, not everybody believes that!V.

Plutocracy in Popular Culture Example 1The world of The LEGO Movie is ruled by President Business, a single character who is both the president of a country and the CEO of a huge corporation. Because President Business combines his incredible wealth with political power, he rules over a plutocratic system.

He also has a secret identity as Lord Business, an evil tyrant and villain who wants to control the entire world. Example 2The two main houses (families with wealth and power) in Dune are House Harkonnen and House Atreides, and their ancient conflict is basically a battle between aristocrats and plutocrats. The Atreides have noble blood, being related to the Royal Family by birth. The Harkonnen, on the other hand, have influence due to massive accumulated wealth but are not actually “nobles.” In the books, the Atreides are the heroes while the Harkonnen are hideous villains, which may suggest that the author finds plutocracy an uglier system than aristocracy.VI. Controversies Capitalism and PlutocracyHow close is the link between capitalism and plutocracy?

Some critics of capitalism feel that it inevitably leads to plutocracy without strong protections in place to prevent this; others feel that plutocracy is only a possible outcome of unfettered capitalism, not an inevitable result.Capitalism rewards those who gain wealth using what they own: if you own a ship, you can use it to bring your goods to foreign lands and sell them at high prices. Eventually you may earn enough to hire a captain and then all your income will come from your ownership of the vessel rather than from you doing any work.Imagine now that you acquire a whole fleet of ships and that your children inherit them when you die.

Now your children have all the income they could ever need, and they never have to work for it, and if they hire wealth managers they can become even more wealthy without any personal labor. Some people find this unjust, while others find it perfectly just, and this is the source of some bitter controversies in the modern era.But the controversy gets even more complicated, because now that your children have so much free time, they can dedicate themselves to political activism on a level that their poorer fellow-citizens can’t match: they can donate massively to campaigns, and spend time shaking hands and gaining influence in the capital, and thus try to skew the system in their favor. Some people argue that this is justified because you worked hard for your money and your children deserve to have power and influence as a consequence of what you did. Others argue that it’s unjust because the children themselves didn’t earn the money, but only inherited it. (This, of course, assumes that you acquired your wealth honestly and didn’t cheat, steal, or enslave people to get it; because if you didn’t acquire your money honestly then it’s definitely unjust that your children should have so much power!).