Should so-called oligarchs have any place in democracies?

Oligarchs, or Billionaires, as we call them in the United States, have long been buying political favors and influence.

George Soros and his son Alexander are THE most toxic of all of these. Soros was kicked out of his home country of Hungary because he was so disruptive in trying to spread his Nazi-Communist blend of politics. He fled to the UK, where he crashed the British pound and became immensely wealthy while bringing the UK to the brink of ruin.

Now persona non-grata in the UK, Soros fled to the United States where the Democrat politicians were excited to take his money. He states that he came to America to make money...but reviles the concept of Patriotism.

He established a foundation called the Open Society Foundation. The goal of his foundation is globalist in nature. The foundation funds and promotes things like open borders, Black Lives Matter, funded the rioters and paid for their travel expenses so that they could attend riots in hot spots after the death of George Floyd, and paid for stacks of bricks to be delivered to riot sites so that bricks could be thrown.

Through the foundation, George Soros and his son Alexander have funded the political campaigns of extremely radical District attorneys in blue states all over this country. The goal of these DA's is radical change in the treatment of criminals, and radical refusal to jail criminals.

So, while you are worried about Elon Musk, who has used his invention, Starlink, to HELP disaster victims, and who now is going to help Donald Trump by cutting waste in government spending, there is a cabal of nearly demonic billionaires who are actively working toward creating chaos.

Musk is American.

Oligarchs have typically achieved their wealth and and power through political connections.

Musk earned his oligarch status, when he added 50% to his wealth thanks to his political connections.

Referring to Hollywood icons as oligarchs is laughable. Oligarchs not only got wealth through power, but are not merely influencers, they force policy.

Calling Soros an oligarch, is also laughable. He did not force policy.

Oligarchy (from Ancient Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía) 'rule by few'; from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few' and ἄρχω (árkhō) 'to influence policy or law in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control.—- you can call them “influencers” or you can call them “lobbyists” but one thing for sure, they are nothing new..

George Soros has been pushing his agenda for decades.

Powerful people in Hollywood have also been influencing societal evolution to their liking across multiple generations. Nothing new. We call them “influencers, “ now.

of course not. Oligarchs equals corruption. In corrupt government, government leadership tends to partner with select chosen sources of resource or business. Government should not be a business. It is there of the people for the people. Once a government is starting to organize a hierarchy of chosen successful business leaders, it is no longer a legitimate Democratic government. One could say that the USAs outgoing regime is nothing but a network, pushing climate change in the spirit of establishing a network of corruption, kickbacks, and big business. Some may disagree with that statement, but it is a perspective.

No they should not.

Are you Russian this time or still European 🤔😉😊

Dominic Cummings was not actually an oligarch. He served as political advisor to a Conservative minister, ran the Brexit campaign, then was chief advisor to Boris Johnson as he became prime minister. So he filled a recognisable function in government.

But he was a tactless prat who alienated most of the governing party. Recent reports that he is attempting to 'attract" the support of Musk should cheer up all moderate democrats because he will doubtless fail in that too 🙂

Musk owes his elevated position to his money alone. There should be no place in a decent government for him.

Just another reason we shouldn't have massive wealth inequality. When people are able to get that rich, they basically become more powerful than the president.

In general no the administration of government is supposed to be unfettered by income\wealth. Unfortunately unless untold wealth (which is power in capitalism and which MIGHT translates to olihlgarchy being necessary to accelerate change) is used to move the process along. The capital necessary to accomplish undoing the inequality currently in society will be excruciating and long lived. (The capital needed accumulates very slowly when along official channels)
It is a balance and a tough one at that.

There‘s not one type of oligarch, it depends on the public virtue and statesmanship of each, so called oligarch, individually. This article takes measure of the historical contributions previous oligarchs made to the prosperity, the liberalization and democratization of England and the Netherlands but the author clearly distinguishes these people from individuals like the Russian oligarchs, Elon Musk or Vivek Ramaswamy.

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/one-cheer-for-oligarchy (published 4 days ago, I might add)

He’s done a lot of good for mankind. I support him.

Cummings was a strategist hired by PM Johnson as an advisor. He at least had some political legitimacy as the PM employed him. Cummings did become too influential, but Musk is just a rich businessman looking to cosy up to the POTUS by bribing him with donations in return for favourable employment legislation. He's effectively a lobbyist for his own profit. There's a difference between someone like Cummings and a grifter like Musk.

Actually they do. The president appoints a cabinet, the members of which are not elected.

Elon Musk will be the 'Paula White' of the new Trump executive come Jan 20th.

They get a vote like everyone else? They shouldnt have any additional influence.

No. They should not at all.
Then again I think there should be no rulers at all, but that's a whole nother topic.

What is an oligarch though? I first heard it in a political science course, as something coined by Aristotle then the media repurposed it to mean these opportunists who seized economic power in Russia. It's difficult to derive a general meaning with just those 2 examples