I have heard of this class before but haven’t paid them a lot of attention. Best I can glean is that they are the Russian super rich that gain political influence either because of, or perhaps as a result of their wealth. I know we have frozen a great deal of their assets….. Is the unwritten part of this that the oligarchy are also Putins inner circle and as such will pressure Putin because their purse strings have been tied?
The oligarchs already have very deep pockets, and stand to gain a lot from the seizure of Ukraine so I expect they'll be supporting this conflict for the long haul rather than quickly backing off because of western financial sanctions. In my opinion, if the sanctions bring Putin to heel it would only be because of the strife felt by the general populace.
They're just hoping that if there's pressure from the inside, it will force Putin's hand. If someone froze assets of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates due to decisions America was making, you might expect that they would start campaigns calling out the government for their actions in an attempt to reverse their situation. Especially if the decisions were decimating business owners across the board. Russian "oligarch" has little meaning beyond "successful entrepreneur from Russia" You could just as easily call our super rich the American oligarchs. You wouldn't, because it's a propaganda technique our media is united on (enemies are oligarchs while we are businessmen). I want to clarify too, I don't think it's bad to think that way so "propaganda" isn't meant derogatorily, just as the best description of non-objective characterization in our media.
The difference is...in Russia, you don't get to be a "successful entrepreneur" without kicking up "10% to the Big Guy". Ooops...(my bad) I keep getting Biden and Putin mixed up.
Oligarchy Definition Coming from the Greek word oligarkhes, meaning “few governing,” an oligarchy is any power structure controlled by a small number of people called oligarchs. Oligarchs may be distinguished and related by their wealth, family ties, nobility, corporate interests, religion, politics, or military power. All forms of government, including democracies, theocracies, and monarchies can be controlled by an oligarchy. The presence of a constitution or similar formative charter does not preclude the possibility of an oligarchy holding actual control. Under the theoretical “iron law of oligarchy,” all political systems eventually evolve into oligarchies. In democracies, oligarchs use their wealth to influence elected officials. In monarchies, oligarchs use their military power or wealth to influence the king or queen. In general, leaders of oligarchies work to build their own power with little or no regard for the needs of society. The terms oligarchy and plutocracy are often confused. The leaders of a plutocracy are always wealthy, while the leaders of an oligarchy need not be rich to command control. Thus, plutocracies are always oligarchies, but oligarchies are not always plutocracies. Oligarchies date back the 600s BCE when the Greek city-states of Sparta and Athens were ruled by an elite group of educated aristocrats. During the 14th century, the city-state of Venice was controlled by rich nobles called “patricians.” More recently, South Africa while under white apartheid rule until 1994, was a classic example of a country ruled by a racially-based oligarchy.
Did you mean shareholder? It's also talked about in that article and makes way more sense as a comparison.
Nope. "Stakeholder Capitalism" is just a thinly veiled scheme for government to circumvent the Constitution by forcing private businesses to be their proxies. The mask mandate is a perfect example. "Stakeholder Capitalism", taken to its logical conclusion, is "Oligarchy". Compliant businesses get the business. The rest die on the vine. Ultimately, under "Stakeholder Capitalism", every surviving company owes their existence to the government. Russia is what America would become without a love for, and dedication to, our Constitution. The Constitution is the Levy that holds back the Water. It protects the Innocent from the Tyrannical.
Interestingly, if you search for the definition, you'll find that the way it's used to describe Russians is inconsistent enough with the typical meaning that it has it's own Russian definition.
The trouble with the definition you cite is that it poorly identifies which is the chicken and which is the egg. In Russia, which better characterizes the oligarchs? Political influence leading to riches, or wealth leading to political influence?
Indeed, but that's the definition the media is using when they refer to the "oligarchs". The point isn't so much to call out an oligarchical system as it is to make use of the negative connotation of the word. Then associating that connotation with their wealthy in general.
But there are doubtless plenty of wealthy folks in Russia who are not even politically active. I suspect that a greater percentage of those politically connected happen to also be wealthy than the other way around.
I definitely agree with you, but our media refer to them all as "oligarchs" anyway. It's not just the politically active people getting their assets frozen.
