Call us now:
Plutocracy is the word for rule, control or undue political influence by wealthy people. It’s meant to convey that although a government has all the trappings of democracy such as elections, courts, political parties, etc. it is really being controlled/directed by wealthy interests. Use with caution though because the idea is meant to be pejorative more than something that would appear in a legal code or the name of a government agency. We have to decide if our government is really being run by wealthy interests.
In This Article
- Plutocracy In Politics And Public Power
- Word Forms And Related Terms
- Where The Word Comes From
- Meaning In Common Dictionaries
- Common Vocabulary And Study Contexts
- How Wealth Turns Into Influence
- How It Differs From Similar Systems
- Example Sentences And Usage Notes
- Countries And Cases People Debate
- Key takeaways
- Frequently asked questions
- Conclusion
Plutocracy In Politics And Public Power
It refers to rule by the rich, especially when money influences government policy-making. The rich can use their power through campaign contributions, lobbying, controlling the most important media, patronage or threats against public officials. A plutocratic regime does not have to be an officially established government by the rich. It may be based on campaign contributions, think tanks, donations to political parties, or a dependence on the business sector.
However, it is a common term in civil society, because we can have all the democratic institutions we want, and still have significant wealth inequality leading to skewed representation. We are mostly talking about political corruption, lack of adequate accountability, and policies that favor one set of people over another.
Plutocracy Example: Common Misreadings To Avoid
Not every 「wealthy nation」 or 「nation with billionaires」 is necessarily a plutocratic country. We have to see whether it is true that money buys undue influence on the government and its policies. A plutocratic society is one where a few decide which taxes we pay, which officials get appointed where, what news gets reported. It is not enough to have a very rich individual, a company making a lot of money or a campaign raising a lot of money. That does not mean it is a plutocracy.
Word Forms And Related Terms
If you search for what is a plutocracy in the dictionary, you will see the word forms for the noun, adjective, and person.
Word Forms and Other Political Terms of Plutocracy
| Term | Use | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| plutocracy | Define a government by the richest people | The noun is exact and good for definitions, headlines, and comparisons | Overused when the evidence for a plutocracy is only overall wealth or GDP |
| plutocratic | Describe a noun, e.g. law, institution, party | The adjective works well, e.g. “plutocratic tax policies,” “plutocratic access” | Implies negative judgment; needs to be backed by examples like donor access or regulatory capture |
| plutocrat | Name a rich person with power | The personal form is more specific than simply “rich” | Not all rich people, like CEOs, are plutocrat unless they also wield political power |
| plutarchy | Refer to the rule of the rich in older or academic language | Similar to plutocracy; useful for historical comparisons | Not common in modern English; needs explanation for today’s audience |
| oligarchy | Compare the rule of the rich to other kinds of elite control | Broad term for domination by a small group, e.g. party, military, or family | Does not specify that wealth is the source of that power |
| kleptocracy | Compare rule by wealth to rule by corruption | Points to leaders who use government for personal gain | Not the same thing; kleptocracies are corrupt, whereas plutocracy is about power from wealth |
| meritocracy | Compare the rule of the rich to power earned by merit | Useful contrast when talking about equality and social mobility | May obscure inherited privilege if taken literally |
| aristocracy | Compare influence by wealth to influence by noble birth | Emphasizes difference between old nobility and wealth-based power | Could mislead readers in places with no aristocracy |
This table provides a definition of plutocracy and its adjective and person forms, as well as the related terms of oligarchy, kleptocracy, meritocracy, and aristocracy, along with their best uses and limitations.
Derived Forms And Adjectives
The adjective form refers to nouns like institutions, laws, parties, or actions associated with power held by the rich. One dictionary definition says it means government or influence by rich people. In political science, “power by the wealthy” could mean campaign contributions, lobbying relationships, or access to regulators. For a group, the noun is plutocrats, meaning people whose wealth is tied to political influence, not just high incomes.
Inflected And Person Forms
The singular form of the person version refers to one rich person with power; the plural, plutocrats, refers to a category or class. It’s a key distinction, because a lot of political debate is about the entire network rather than individual members. Just because someone is rich—for example, from running a business, paying taxes, or making campaign donations—does not automatically make them a member. It’s whether that wealth translates into political influence.
Where The Word Comes From
Ploutos means wealth, and kratos means rule, power or authority. So the plutocracy means wealth-rule, not rule by blood or talent, majority vote or military strength. In English political language, the suffix is used in system names like democracy (people-rule) and aristocracy (rule by a hierarchical elite).
This is where it gets interesting. The root structure makes it easy to define but hard to apply. No system of politics is purely financial; there are always legal structures, party systems, social status, and public consent, so the term is more often a dominant trend than a clear constitutional type.
Origin And Historical Use
The classical root structure is the origin of the core meaning: wealth plus power. Contemporary authors use the plutocratic meaning as a pejorative name for systems in which the wealthy dominate without noble titles or inherited power. Aristotle is a useful reference here because students often learn Greek political terminology when contrasting systems of rule, virtue, citizenship, and class power.
Meaning In Common Dictionaries
Most definitions from common dictionaries involve government by the rich or the rich as the ruling class or a society dominated by the rich. Some say “rule or control by wealth.” A few give word forms and usage examples like Dictionary.com. And the person noun plutocrat means someone whose wealth relates to power.
That’s interesting enough to ponder. The reason dictionary definitions are short is because they don’t say which country, if any, meets the criteria. The important distinction is being ruled formally versus having disproportionate influence. A state can have equal rights for all of its citizens under its constitution but have the financial influence of citizens determine their influence and focus.
Common Vocabulary And Study Contexts
You’ll find it in SAT word lists, civics lessons, literature classes, and debate topics like is america a plutocracy.
- In SAT vocabulary, you might see the word in a question that asks you to define it as a government where money controls the government.
- In civics, you’ll see it listed with democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, aristocracy, and meritocracy.
- In literature, you might see it used in a class where you’re reading a book in which rich people are influencing politicians or voters.
- In debate, you’ll be asked to cite examples of how money influences the government, such as lobbying, campaign donations, or media ownership.
- There are other P words you might see in class such as power, privilege, patronage, policy, and public influence.
- In Greek roots class, you might learn that ploutos and kratos go with demos, aristos, and other political word parts.
How Wealth Turns Into Influence
Here’s a concrete example of plutocracy example. For instance, campaign contributions could enable politicians to prioritize the interests of the donor. Lobbying could allow an industry group to have regular access to legislators and regulators. Media ownership could decide which stories get published, whether or not there is explicit suppression.
What does this mean for you? Think about how wealth can become power. You could talk about how elite circles can put people in advisory positions. You could discuss how patronage can reward politicians and institutions for their allegiance. You could discuss regulatory capture, where regulators are reliant on the industries they regulate. It’s easier to use the term if you have a specific example of how wealth becomes power.
How It Differs From Similar Systems
Oligarchy
Oligarchy translates literally as rule by the few. The “few” could be very wealthy people, but it could also be army officers, religious leaders, party functionaries, large landowners, or wealthy families. Oligarchs can be very rich. But they don’t need to be. That is the crucial difference. “Rule by the wealthy” is different from “rule by the wealthy or the non-wealthy.” There is an ongoing controversy about whether Russia is oligarchic.
Aristocracy
Aristocracy is a system where power is wielded by those born into a certain class, caste, or royal family. Aristocrats might be rich, especially if their families have owned land or businesses for generations. But that’s not what makes them powerful. An aristocrat is powerful because of his or her social rank. A plutocrat is powerful because of money, business, political contributions, influence over media outlets, or connections to government officials.
Example Sentences And Usage Notes
In general, use this word in a sentence that states that the wealthy dominate politics, or that the rich wield more power than normal.
- In neutral dictionary examples: “The historian referred to the city as a state ruled by its wealthiest clans.” – In political rhetoric: “The activist organization said that donor power had turned government accountability to the elite, rather than to the people.” – In academic writing: “The article examined how high concentrations of money could corrupt democratic representation even without formally ending democracy.” – In carefully worded country-specific contexts: “Some analysts question whether America fits the wealth-rule model, given the influence of campaign contributions and lobbying on government.” – Focusing on the mechanics of influence: “The allegation had three parts: donors were too close to government officials, regulation was hijacked by industry, and major media outlets were controlled by a few people.” – Avoiding exaggeration: “Saying that all market economies are wealth-rules ignores the distinction between having money and holding power over government.” – The more evidence-based formulation: “The claim is more convincing if it specifies the beneficiaries, the actual policy shifts, and the loss of democratic participation.” – The temporal caveat: “References to today’s donors, sanctions, ownership, and lobbyists are subject to change and must be verified.”
See Examples For Different Forms
Other forms of this term may be used to describe individuals, collectives, and institutional behaviors without repeating the same noun.
- Using the adjective form: “The opposition accused the tax legislation of being wealth-centric due to its apparent favoritism toward wealthy donors and lobbyists.” – Using the singular noun form: “A single oligarch bankrolled politicians, controlled the press, and negotiated directly with cabinet members.” – Using the plural noun form: “A tight-knit band of rich business owners lobbied regulators while insisting their agenda served the greater good.” – Note on proper usage: “Do not apply the singular noun form to an individual who is only wealthy and not politically powerful.”
Countries And Cases People Debate
The country names are not necessarily absolute. In the US, we often have a discussion about money in politics, lobbying, access of donors, concentration of media ownership, and whether a citizen has any realistic chance to compete with these moneyed interests. We have not solved the issue; we have defined the terms of the issue.
In the case of Russia, we often hear about oligarchs, big business, state power, and loyalty to the state. This often leads us to ask, is Russia an oligarchy? Is it a government by wealth? It depends on what you’re counting as a ruling class, moneyed interests, state control, or some combination of the three. When you see a list of “countries,” remember that it’s a discussion, not a classification.
Key takeaways
- Means the rule of the rich.
- Etymologically from the Greek for wealth and power.
- The word has been predominantly used in a pejorative sense to refer to corruption, lobbying, and influence by the wealthy elite.
- As there is debate about whether certain countries are plutocratic, examples should be presented as supporting evidence, not stated as facts.
- “plutocratic” is an adjective.
Frequently asked questions
What is an example of a plutocracy?
One example of this would be a state in which a small circle of the rich exert most of their influence on legislation, careers, and policies by donating to political campaigns, using lobbyists, owning news outlets, or dispensing favors. Others, not part of the elite, have very little influence. Notice how we emphasize the method, rather than just the existence of rich people.
Is Russia a plutocracy or oligarchy?
In general, Russia is considered an oligarchy because we often hear of a few elites who are extremely rich and have ties to the government and, sometimes, their ideologies align. We may hear others refer to it as a plutocracy, but it’s better to ask them what they mean by that.
What’s the difference between a plutocracy and oligarchy?
An oligarchy is rule by a select few, while what is a plutocracy is rule or control by the rich. They can be the same, if the few are rich. But an oligarchy can also be ruled by a political party, the military, a dynasty, or a religious institution.
What is the difference between a plutocracy and an aristocracy?
An aristocracy is rule by noble families, while a plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. They can be the same, if a noble family maintains its wealth for generations. But aristocracy refers to lineage, and plutocracy refers to money.
Can a democracy also have wealthy elites with outsized political influence?
It is possible for an elected country that protects fundamental freedoms for all to be one in which the wealthy exert disproportionate control over politics and policy by making large campaign contributions, influencing politics through lobbying, owning media outlets, or being more easily accessible to policy-makers. This is why some wonder is america a plutocracy. It depends on current data and a well-defined standard.
Conclusion
Begin with the phrase’s original meaning: “wealth” + “rule”. Today, plutocracy typically refers to a country, state, or political system where people with significant financial resources exercise substantial influence in government, politics, bureaucracy, and civil society. Since it’s generally a pejorative, make sure to give a specific instance of how moneyed interests have power (lobbying, campaign finance, media ownership, elite networks, cronyism, regulatory capture, etc.) before you use it. For maximum impact, contrast it with related words like oligarchy, aristocracy, meritocracy, and democracy. Because the specifics of today’s nations, donors, sanctions, media moguls, and campaign finance regulations won’t last long, double check them for accuracy if you use it in a current setting.
