Has the United States Become an Oligarchy?

This is a long article, but I think the subject is worth a thorough examination.

There are clear signs that democracy in America is in trouble, and many would argue that it has become an oligarchy.

?The United States was founded on principles of democratic representation and equal opportunity, yet a troubling transformation has taken root in recent decades. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated among a small segment of society, political power has followed suit, reshaping American democracy into something more closely resembling an oligarchy. The statistics tell a stark story: the wealthiest 1% of Americans now control more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, while their outsized influence on policy decisions has grown correspondingly.

?Through campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and control of major media outlets, this small group of ultra-wealthy individuals has gained an unprecedented ability to shape legislation, regulate industries, and influence public discourse, further concentrating their power and wealth.

?This shift toward oligarchic control isn't merely about numbers on a balance sheet – it stands for a fundamental departure from the democratic ideals enshrined in our founding documents. When political decisions consistently favor the interests of a wealthy minority over the broader public good, when economic mobility stagnates, and when the mechanisms of democratic accountability become increasingly performative rather than substantive, we must confront an uncomfortable reality: America is drifting from its democratic moorings toward a system of governance that serves the few at the expense of the many.

?What is an Oligarchy?

?An?oligarchy?is a form of governance or societal structure in which power is concentrated in the hands of a small, elite group of individuals, families, or organizations. These elites typically hold significant influence over political decisions, economic resources, and social norms. The term "oligarchy" comes from the Greek words?oligos?(few) and?arkhein?(to rule), meaning "rule by the few."

?Characteristics of Oligarchy:

1. Small Ruling Class: The governing body comprises a small group of people who often share common interests, backgrounds, or ideologies.
2. Centralized Power: Power is not distributed widely among the population; instead, it is heavily concentrated.
3. Elitism: The ruling group often derives legitimacy from wealth, lineage, education, or military power.
4. Control Over Resources: Oligarchs tend to control vital economic sectors, natural resources, or financial systems.
5. Lack of Broad Representation: Most citizens have limited or no role in decision-making, leading to policies that favor the ruling group.

?Comparison with Plutocracy and Autocracy:

?1.?Plutocracy:

• Definition: A plutocracy is a system of governance in which the wealthy, or those with significant economic capital, hold dominant power. The term comes from the Greek?words ploutos?(wealth) and?kratos?(rule).
• Key Difference: While oligarchies can be based on wealth, they are not exclusively so. In a plutocracy, wealth itself is the primary determinant of power, while oligarchies may be based on other factors such as military influence, political networks, or hereditary privilege.
• Example: A country where billionaires directly shape policies without holding formal office could be described as a plutocracy.

?2. Corporatocracy: Government controlled by corporations and typically ruled by private collective wealth (via corporations). A corporatocracy?is a collective-based democratic (in some respects) Oligarchy, shareholders, board members, capitalists, and employee-owned stocks mean more people have a slice of the pie (this being less and less true, the more “oligarchical” or “plutocratic” it becomes, and the “fewer and fewer” owners sit?on the top).

?3.?Autocracy:

• Definition: An autocracy is a system of governance in which a single individual holds absolute power. The term derives from the Greek?autos?(self) and?Kratos?(rule), meaning "rule by oneself."
• Key Difference: Autocracy centralizes power in one person (e.g., a dictator or monarch), whereas an oligarchy involves a group of people sharing power. Autocracies may or may not have an elite class influencing the leader, but ultimate authority rests with the individual.
• Example: Absolute monarchies or dictatorships are classic forms of autocracy.

?Overlap and Interplay:

• Oligarchy vs. Plutocracy and Corporatocracy: Many oligarchies are also plutocracies or corporatocracies since wealth often enables the concentration of power. However, an oligarchy can also be based on military strength or political alliances rather than financial means alone.
• Oligarchy vs. Autocracy: Some autocratic regimes may rely on an oligarchic group to maintain power, such as military juntas or ruling councils. However, in true autocracies, the power of the group is secondary to that of the autocrat.

?Modern Context

?Oligarchies are often associated with corruption and inequality because the ruling elite prioritizes their interests over the public good. Critics argue that even in ostensibly democratic societies, oligarchic tendencies can emerge when influential elites dominate political systems, eroding true democratic representation.

?So How Does the United States Fit These Definitions?

?In essence, the present situation in the US fits the definition of both an oligarchy and a plutocracy, with elements of authoritarianism rule.

?The term "oligarchy" has become increasingly prevalent in global discourse, with media outlets applying it to diverse nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia. In 2017, Salon Magazine even cautioned about an emerging global "uber-oligarchy" encompassing powerful figures from financiers to entertainment icons.

?Ron Formisano, author of American Oligarchy: The Permanent Political Class and Plutocracy in America: How Increasing Inequality Destroys the Middle Class and Exploits the Poor, provides a concise definition: "An oligarchy is a combination of wealth and power, and often tends to close off access to its ranks — 'pulling up the ladder.'"

?Oligarchy, which derives from oligos, meaning "few, " has roots in ancient Greece. Aristotle used the term to distinguish rule by wealthy or aristocratic elites from monarchical rule and democracy, where citizens of modest means hold political power.

?Oligarchies appear through various pathways. In autocratic systems, a weakened leader might see power gradually appropriated by influential subordinates, who may install a figurehead or assume direct control. Alternatively, elite groups—particularly wealthy business leaders—might gain societal control through operational effectiveness, regardless of broader social impact. There's also what might be called passive oligarchy, where democratic systems deteriorate as citizens abdicate their civic responsibilities to an elite class, avoiding the complexities of governance.

?Public sentiment, however, suggests widespread concern about power concentration. A July 2017 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll revealed that 75 per cent of Americans felt insufficient influence in Washington, while 82 per cent believed wealthy individuals held excessive governmental power.

?Formisano observes that in the American context, "It's not a matter of restrictions, but more a closing of opportunity and diminishing chances for the middle and lower classes." This suggests a subtle but significant shift in how oligarchic power manifests in contemporary America.

?The question of America's potential transformation into an oligarchy has sparked significant academic and public debate. A notable 2014 study in Perspectives on Politics published by Cambridge University Press, by Princeton's Martin Gilens and Northwestern's Benjamin I. Page analyzed 1,779 policy issues, suggesting that economic elites and business interests wielded substantial influence over U.S. policy, while average citizens had minimal impact.

?They say, “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”?That means the wealthy determine the country’s policies, and the average American has little or, in some cases, power. They argue, "A proposed policy change with low support among the economically elite is adopted only about 18% of the time, while a proposed change with high support is adopted about 45% of the time."

?They also argue that “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.”?

?Their conclusions should give Americans cause for concern regarding their democracy they say: “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”?

?Oligarchy and Inequality

?A new analysis shows that earnings inequality in the United States has risen dramatically over the past four decades and continues to accelerate, with the top 0.1% seeing wage growth of 465% between 1979 and 2021 while the bottom 90% experienced just 29% growth during that same period.

?In terms of income inequality, the?U.S. has the fourth worst?Gini coefficient (or index) among OECD countries, the most commonly used measure of income inequality.?According to a Pew Center study,?the growth in income in recent decades has tilted to upper-income households. At the same time, the?middle class,?which once formed the clear majority of Americans, is shrinking.

?Thus, a greater share of the nation’s aggregate income is now going to upper-income households and the share going to middle- and lower-income households are falling. The middle class decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019.?The?top 1% earns forty times more?than the bottom 90%.?The top 0.1% of income earners own as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined. Since 1990, CEO compensation has increased by 300%. Some hedge fund managers made up to a billion annually, enough to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City.

?Top U.S. income earners avoid paying taxes.?The 55 U.S. corporations that paid no federal corporate income tax in 2019-2021 have spent a combined $450 million on political campaign contributions and lobbying—including for lower?taxes—according to a report published by the progressive advocacy group Public Citizen.?A?2015 study?conducted by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund found that the largest 500 companies in the U.S. keep more than $2.1 trillion in tax havens.

?The average wage of 44% of workers before the pandemic was just $18,000, according to the Economist, and a typical worker can?no longer afford to care for a family of four?on a year’s salary.?While a child born in 1945 had a 90% chance of making more than their parents, someone born in 1985 only has a?50% chance of faring better than them. It’s?easier to achieve the American Dream in China, South Africa, and Brazil?than in the US.

?The BBC reported startling economic equality figures in a recent documentary: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion. But what is more striking to many is a close look at the economic inequality in the homeland of the “American Dream.” The United States is the most economically stratified society in the western world. As?The Wall Street Journal?reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth, and the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation’s wealth.

?The?U.S. Census Bureau and the?World Wealth Report both report increases for the top 5% of households even during the 2008 recession. Based on Internal Revenue Service figures, the richest 1% have tripled their cut of America’s income pie in one generation. The average American believes that the richest fifth own 59% of the wealth and that the bottom 40% own 9%. The?reality?is strikingly different. The top 20% of US households own more than 84% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% combine for a paltry 0.3%. The Walton family, for example, has more wealth than 42% of American families?combined.

?Each and every year?, Forbes?magazine celebrates America’s billionaires as paragons of entrepreneurial success, asserting that the list “instils confidence that the American Dream is still very much alive.” Of the America’s current 400 richest,?Forbes?explains, 70% “made their fortunes entirely from scratch.” Most news media took that claim at face value and did little or no fact checking.

?However, researchers at a Boston-based group, United for a Fair Economy, investigated the actual backgrounds of the Forbes 400.They concluded?that most of the super-rich were born with advantages, concluding Forbes was spinning a “misleading take of what it takes to become wealthy in America. Most of the Forbes 400 have benefited from a level of privilege unknown to the vast majority of Americans.” The study concluded that more than 60% of those on the list all grew up in substantial privilege with inheritances up to $1 million.

?A Pew Foundation study, reported in the New York Times, concluded, ‘The chance that children of the poor or middle class will climb up the income ladder, has not changed significantly over the last three decades.’ The?Economist’s?special report, ‘Inequality in America,’ concluded, ‘The fruits of?productivity?gains have been skewed towards the highest earners and towards companies whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.’”

?The increasing concentration of in-country inequality is signalled in the latest book,?Terra Incognita: 100 Maps to Survive the Next 100 Years. Between 1980 and 2020, billionaires in the US?saw their wealth?soar by 1,130%, increasing more than 200 faster than median wages. At the same time, the tax obligations of billionaires in the?US declined?by 78% between 1980 and 2018 (measured as a percentage of their wealth).

?Since 1990, CEO compensation has increased by 300%. Larry Ellison, chief executive of Oracle Corp. received $ 1.84 billion and Barry Diller, chief executive of Interactive/Expedia.com received $ 1.14 billion, and the next six received at least $500 million in total pay. In 2024, the media salary of chief executives at major corporations in the United States was $16.3 million. Some hedge fund managers made $4 billion annually, enough to pay the salaries of every public-school teacher in New York City. In the history of U.S. corporate pay packages, there have been plenty of massive?payouts?worth almost $1 billion in today's dollars. However, none comes close to the $46 billion pay deal Tesla shareholders handed to CEO Elon Musk.

?“An estimated?34% to 45%?of wealth in the U.S. is inherited, according to a 2005 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, and intergenerational class mobility is notoriously difficult, depending on?where you grew up?and what your?racial identity?is. The “self-made” story isn’t just wrong — it’s dangerous and discourages action to challenge the seemingly inevitable status quo.” In 2020 alone, children?will inherit?around $764 billion and pay an average of just 2.1% on this income. By?contrast for working people,?the average tax rate is 15.8%, seven times more. These disparities are further skewed by race, and the racial wealth gap is?even larger?than it was in 1968, at the peak of the struggle for civil rights.

?Workers’ Wages No Longer Keep Pace with Productivity

For three decades following World War II, American workers’ hourly compensation increased alongside productivity gains. But this link has long been severed. Economic growth now funnels wealth almost exclusively to the richest Americans.

The richest 1% of Americans own 52% of all U.S. stock, while the top 10% control a staggering 93%. This concentration of wealth has transformed economic gains that once uplifted working and middle-class families into a vehicle for enriching the ultra-wealthy.

Annual earnings data from the Social Security Administration underscores this trend. According to Elise Gould and Jori Kandra of the Economic Policy Institute, the top 1% have claimed a record share of total earnings, while the bottom 90% hit a historic low. From 1979 to 2021, wages for the top 1% grew seven times faster than those for the bottom 90%. This inequality surge stems from stagnant minimum wages, high unemployment tolerances, weakened labor protections, and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Billionaire Wealth: Up 88% in Four Years

The Covid-19 pandemic has been a boon for U.S. billionaires, whose combined wealth soared by 88% in just four years. In March 2020, the United States had 614 billionaires with a combined wealth of $2.95 trillion. By March 2024, their numbers rose to 737, with a combined fortune of $5.53 trillion—an increase of $2.58 trillion.

Individual billionaires have seen extraordinary gains:

• Elon Musk: Tesla’s CEO grew his wealth from $25 billion in March 2020 to $188.5 billion in 2024, a more than sevenfold increase.
• Jeff Bezos: Amazon’s founder increased his fortune from $113 billion to $192.8 billion, even after a costly divorce settlement and substantial charitable donations.
• The Walton Family: Principal heirs to the Walmart empire—Jim, Alice, and Rob Walton—saw their collective wealth rise from $161.1 billion to $229.6 billion.
• Centi-Billionaire Surge: In 2020, only Jeff Bezos had a net worth of $100 billion or more. By 2024, all of the top ten billionaires had surpassed that threshold, with their combined wealth reaching $1.4 trillion.

The data paints a stark picture: wealth inequality is not just deepening but accelerating, reshaping the economic and social landscape of the United States.

Although voting is a cornerstone of democracy in the U.S., for many, it feels like an empty ritual. Millions of Americans, including those incarcerated, are barred from participating in elections. Even eligible voters often feel trapped between choosing “the lesser of two evils.” This widespread disillusionment underscores a deeper systemic issue: as political theorist Jeffrey Winters argues in?Oligarchy?(2011), the United States operates as a de facto oligarchy where wealth dictates power, and policy overwhelmingly favors the elite while offering superficial concessions to the broader populace.

Corporate Dominance and Market Manipulation

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz warns in?The Price of Inequality?(2012) that weakened antitrust laws and neoliberal reforms have allowed corporations to consolidate unprecedented economic and political power. “Markets, on their own, don’t work well when there’s a concentration of economic and political power,” Stiglitz writes, emphasizing how these forces exacerbate inequality and hinder broader economic performance. He further criticizes how government policies, such as bailouts and near-zero interest loans, have disproportionately benefited the financial sector. As a result, the top 1% now captures nearly 25% of national income and holds 40% of the nation’s wealth. These structural advantages have entrenched disparities, shielding the wealthy while limiting upward mobility for the majority.

This concentration of wealth among the elite has deep historical roots. Sociologist C. Wright Mills, in his seminal work?The Power Elite?(1956), described how leaders in corporations, the military, and politics collaborate to control the nation’s direction. Decades later, economist Jeffrey Sachs echoed these concerns in?The Price of Civilization?(2011), describing the U.S. as a “corporatocracy.” According to Sachs, this system is driven by weak national political parties, the rise of the military-industrial complex post-World War II, corporate financing of elections, and globalization, which has eroded the bargaining power of workers.

?The Origins of Modern Oligarchy

?The seeds of this movement were sown in the early 1900s, when the American middle class grew faster than any other in history, both in size and wealth. Notably, middle-class incomes rose more quickly than those of the top 1%.

?Conservative elites theorized that economic desperation among working people, women, minorities, and students would discourage them from organizing, protesting, or even voting. They believed that weakening the middle class could subdue the turbulence of democracy.

?The transformation of American democracy into an oligarchic system has accelerated in recent decades, driven by the concentrated power of right-wing billionaires who systematically influence political processes through voter suppression, media control, and strategic lobbying. This shift threatens the very foundations of democratic governance, with striking parallels to recent democratic backsliding in countries like Russia and Hungary.

?Media Consolidation and Democratic Erosion

?The erosion of media independence serves as a crucial mechanism for oligarchic control. Hungary provides a stark warning: Viktor Orbán's government demonstrates how media concentration can undermine democracy. Speaking at an American CPAC conference in Budapest, Orbán openly advocated for his approach: "Have your own media. It's the only way to counter the insanity of the progressive left. Western media has been co-opted by leftist viewpoints, and journalists are taught progressive principles in universities."

?The American media landscape has undergone similar consolidation, sparked by key policy changes. The Reagan administration's 1983 retreat from antitrust enforcement, coupled with the elimination of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, have concentrated media ownership into the hands of six corporations. As Ralph Schroeder's research indicates, this consolidation has enabled far-right influencers to exploit media ecosystems, normalizing extremist rhetoric and spreading disinformation.

?The Corporate Capture of Democracy

?Economist Edmund Phelps identified this trend in 2013, warning of "the new corporatism" where government intervention primarily benefits corporations rather than citizens. As he noted, "Big companies have a great deal of influence on the government, and lobbyists' suggestions are welcome, especially if they come with bribes."

?The economic impact of this shift has been profound. Larry Summers, former Director of the Council of Economic Advisors, estimated that by 2007, the bottom 80% of families were receiving $664 billion less annually compared to 1979 income distributions—approximately $7,000 per family. Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkeley confirms that wealth and income growth have concentrated among the top 0.1% of earners, those making over $2 million annually. "The relative growth of income and wealth is not occurring among small and mid-sized entrepreneurs," Saez explains.

?The Rise of Financial Power

?The financial sector's growing dominance illustrates this concentration of power. By 2010, the top five U.S. banks controlled 48% of the nation's banking assets, up from 30% in 1998. The sector's share of corporate profits surged from 10% to 35%, creating unprecedented wealth disparities.

?Jeffrey Sachs, in The Price of Civilization, identifies four key trends driving America toward oligarchy: "weak national political parties, the post-WWII military-industrial complex, corporate financing of elections, and globalization." As Joseph Stiglitz warns, without reforms to limit corporate power, "democratic processes will continue to be distorted by the disproportionate influence of money."

?The consequences of this oligarchic system extend beyond economic inequality. As Jeffrey A. Winters observes in his book Oligarchy, such systems typically stifle innovation and economic growth as ruling elites prioritize maintaining their status quo over addressing societal needs. This often results in the emergence of "puppet leaders"—politicians who appear powerful but serve the interests of their oligarchic backers.

?Reagan's famous declaration that "government is the problem" has been weaponized to erode trust in democratic institutions, creating vulnerability to plutocratic control. This systematic dismantling of democratic infrastructure, coupled with the concentration of wealth and power, mirrors the path taken by countries that have already succumbed to oligarchic control, suggesting an urgent need for reform before these changes become irreversible.

?The Slide from an Oligarchy to a Fascist Authoritarian State

In his outstanding book?The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, Thom Hartmann presents a crucial insight: oligarchy is inherently unstable, functioning not as a permanent state but as a transitional phase between democracy and authoritarian rule, typically fascism.

Hartmann says, “The transformation of Germany in the 1930s provides a sobering historical example of this progression. German media titan Alfred Hugenberg, who controlled two major national newspapers and held significant influence over radio broadcasting, formed an alliance with Hitler in 1930 after his failed beer hall putsch and subsequent public speaking ban. This media backing parallels modern dynamics, as Hartmann notes, "much like the Murdoch media empire and billionaire-owned right-wing radio helped bring Trump to power in 2016."

Hartmann goes on to describe what transpired next:

·????? Hitler's initial rise drew support from Germany's industrial elite, despite his populist evangelical movement that targeted Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, and socialists. As German industrialist Fritz Thyssen reveals in?I Paid Hitler, he actively lobbied President von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as chancellor and convinced the Association of German Industrialists—Germany's equivalent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—to provide 3 million Reichsmarks to the Nazi Party for the 1932 election.

·????? Thyssen's primary motivation was self-interest: tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and government contracts for his business interests. Combined with Hugenberg's media influence, these efforts propelled Hitler and his followers to power. Hitler's message resonated by portraying average German workers as victims, claiming they had been "stabbed in the back" by Jews, homosexuals, and socialists through the Treaty of Versailles negotiations, which he blamed for Germany's economic crisis.

·????? Hitler's narrative identified specific targets: German minorities, whom he accused of promoting "degeneracy" through jazz and swing music, tolerance of homosexuality and transgender people, and what he termed the "international Jewish conspiracy." Upon seizing power, the Nazi regime swiftly implemented authoritarian measures: banning books, prohibiting drag shows and homosexuality, revising school curricula to eliminate mentions of WWI atrocities, and altering election laws to ensure permanent control.

How Fascism Works: Key Insights into a Dangerous Ideology

?Fascism, as defined and popularized by Benito Mussolini in the 20th century, represents an authoritarian ideology centered on the supremacy of the State, achieved through conquest, strict social order, and violent means. The term originated with Mussolini, who famously wrote in 1932 that fascism “believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of peace.” Instead, he declared, “War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it.

?Origins and Evolution of Fascism

?Mussolini’s rise to power in Italy in 1922 marked the advent of fascism, a movement he defined as rejecting individualism in favor of national unity. The term “fascism” derives from the Italian word?fascio?(bundle), itself rooted in the Latin?fasces, an ancient Roman symbol of unity and authority. According to Mussolini, the individual exists only in relation to the State. In his words, fascism denies “the absurd conventional truth of political equality...the myth of ‘happiness’ and indefinite progress” (1932). For Mussolini, the State was not merely a governing body but the embodiment of society’s purpose and identity.

?While Mussolini’s fascism emphasized national unity, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany integrated racial purity as a cornerstone of its fascist ideology. As Hitler declared in a Reichstag speech on December 11, 1941, the individual “is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.”

?Defining Characteristics of Fascism

?Fascism is notoriously difficult to define due to its adaptability across different contexts. However, key principles of fascist ideology remain consistent:

• Supremacy of the State: In fascist ideology, the State is supreme, and its power derives from its ability to wage war. Mussolini viewed peace as a weakness, while aggression and domination were seen as virtues essential for the state’s survival.
• Strict Social Order: Fascism rejects equality and humanism, instead enforcing rigid class hierarchies. This distinguishes it from communism, which seeks to abolish class distinctions. According to fascists, each individual has a specific, unchangeable role in glorifying the State.
• Authoritarian Leadership: Fascism relies on a singular, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This concept, known in Nazi Germany as?Führerprinzip?("the leadership principle"), holds that a strong, unchallenged leader is necessary to maintain unity and suppress dissent.
• Glorification of Violence: Physical violence and suppression are central to fascist regimes. The State achieves and maintains power through discipline and the elimination of opposition. Violence is seen as a necessary tool for social regeneration and national unity.

?Social Regeneration and Propaganda

?The primary goal of fascism is social regeneration, achieved through national unity and rejecting individualism. Fascist regimes often portray the State as being in crisis, weakened by internal diversity and external conspiracies. To gain public support, they glorify an idealized past and promote the notion that radical social change is essential for renewal. Propaganda, rallies, and media campaigns are critical in spreading these ideas.

?Mussolini argued that happiness and individuality were incompatible with the state's goals, writing in 1932 that fascism aims to “submerge” individuals in extreme nationalism. Symbols like national flags, monuments, and State parades take on a quasi-religious quality, fostering absolute faith in the State rather than any deity.

?Modern Fascism and Neofascism

?Although traditional fascism fell out of favor after World War II, its ideals persist in modern forms. Neofascist movements often promote extreme nationalism, racial purity, and the dominance of State interests. Unlike their historical predecessors, these groups typically lack the military power to enforce their ideologies on a large scale. Instead, they use political involvement, internet marketing, and cultural propaganda to gain influence.

?Notable examples of neofascist violence include the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, a series of attacks targeting immigrants in Germany during the 1990s, and the Charlottesville rally in 2017. The Proud Boys, a far-right group, were indicted for seditious conspiracy following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. As Madeleine Albright warned in her 2018 book?Fascism: A Warning, the ideology “represents a greater threat to peace than at any time since the end of World War II.”

?Fascism’s Enduring Threat

?Scholars have noted several concerning trends in U.S. political discourse and organization that they connect to historical patterns of rising fascism:

·????? Media and Information Control: Jason Stanley, author of "How Fascism Works," has pointed to the deliberate delegitimization of mainstream media sources and the creation of alternative information ecosystems that promote specific ideological narratives. He draws parallels to how authoritarian movements historically undermined public trust in traditional information sources.

·????? Political Violence: Historians like Timothy Snyder have written about the increasing normalization of political violence and intimidation at public events, noting how this echoes patterns seen in democratic backsliding elsewhere.

·????? Economic Grievance Exploitation: Robert Paxton, in his analyses of fascist movements, has discussed how economic anxieties and social changes in the U.S. have been channeled into ethno-nationalist movements, similar to historical patterns.

?Scholars have particularly focused on:

• The targeting of minority groups and immigrants as scapegoats for economic problems.
• Attacks on academic institutions and expertise.
• The fusion of corporate and political power.
• The embrace of conspiracy theories by mainstream political figures.

?Critics point to concrete developments like:

• The rise in politically motivated threats against public officials.
• Attempts to restrict voting access in ways that disproportionately affect minority communities.
• The promotion of "great replacement" theory in mainstream media.
• Increasing calls for political opponents to be imprisoned.

?Yale philosopher Jason Stanley, in his book?How Fascism Works?(2018), identifies parallels between historical fascism and contemporary movements, including the MAGA Republican agenda. In an August 2022 speech, President Joe Biden referred to this philosophy as “semi-fascism,” while Stanley warns of the dangers of normalizing authoritarian rhetoric.

?Fascism thrives in times of economic and social instability. Its appeal lies in offering simple solutions to complex problems, often by scapegoating minorities and glorifying a mythical past. As Mussolini encapsulated it, fascism “does not believe in perpetual peace” but rather in the eternal struggle for dominance, a belief that continues to inspire dangerous movements worldwide.

?The Influence of the Super-Rich in Elections

?It’s been?reported?that just 50 billionaire families have?already?contributed a whopping $600 million to the 2024 elections. Over two-thirds went to Trump, Trump-affiliated groups, and other Republican candidates.

?The Citizens United Supreme Court Decision and Its Context

?The 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling marked a significant shift in American campaign finance law. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment's free speech protections prohibit the government from restricting independent political spending by corporations and other organizations. The Court determined that such spending constitutes protected speech under the Constitution.

?This ruling arrived during a period of growing wealth concentration in the United States. In subsequent years, billionaire wealth has reached historic levels, with some ultra-wealthy individuals engaging in high-profile spending on luxury items and private space ventures. Studies have documented that some wealthy Americans pay relatively low effective tax rates due to various provisions in the tax code.

?Recent state-level policy debates reflect ongoing discussions about taxation. For instance, Washington state has seen initiatives regarding its capital gains tax, highlighting broader disagreements about how investment income should be taxed.

?These developments occurred against the backdrop of economic policies that gained prominence in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. These policies emphasized reducing tax rates on higher incomes and capital gains, based on the theory that benefits would "trickle down" to other economic groups. Economists continue to debate the actual economic impacts of these approaches.

?A Historical Perspective

?The American economic landscape presents a paradox: while productivity and economic growth have marched steadily upward, wages have remained remarkably stagnant. The early 1980s marked a crucial turning point, as inflation-adjusted median household income effectively plateaued.

?Ronald Reagan’s Role in Cementing an Oligarchy

?Ronald Reagan’s administration implemented sweeping measures that fundamentally altered America’s economic and political landscape. Key policies included:

• Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Reagan slashed the top tax rate for millionaires from 74% to 27%, while raising taxes on working-class Americans 11 times.
• He also taxed Social Security income, unemployment benefits, and tips, disproportionately affecting working people.
• War on Labor: Reagan crushed the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) and oversaw a dramatic decline in union membership, which fell from one-third of the workforce to around 10%.
• Higher Education Costs: Reagan’s policies significantly increased the cost of education, burdening a generation with $1.7 trillion in student debt, effectively discouraging activism among young people.
• Antitrust Enforcement: By ending enforcement of antitrust laws, Reagan allowed monopolies to thrive, resulting in higher consumer costs and concentrated corporate power.
• Media Deregulation: The termination of the Fairness Doctrine and the 1996 Telecommunications Act enabled the rise of right-wing media, fostering an ecosystem of disinformation.

?Economic and Corporate Transformations: 1970s to Present

?The late 20th century marked significant shifts in American economic policy and corporate governance. Changes to the social safety net coincided with developments in healthcare policy, including the introduction of Medicare Advantage under the Bush administration, which altered the coverage of many seniors.

?During this period, various interest groups engaged in policy debates around climate science, with substantial resources devoted to fossil fuel industries. These debates influenced educational curricula and political funding across different states.

?Economic data shows limited wage growth over several decades. After adjusting for inflation, median household incomes have seen modest increases since 1979, while wages for non-supervisory workers have remained relatively flat since 1969. This trend persists despite significant overall economic growth and productivity gains.

?Corporate Governance Evolution

?The corporate landscape transformed dramatically in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Financial innovations, particularly high-yield bonds, enabled a wave of corporate acquisitions. This period introduced new perspectives on corporate governance, emphasizing shareholder interests as the primary focus of corporate decision-making.

?Changes in corporate law and financial regulation facilitated this transformation. The number of major corporate acquisitions increased substantially, from 13 large-scale takeovers in the 1970s to 150 in the 1980s.

?Changes in Business Leadership

?Corporate management strategies evolved significantly during this period. Leadership approaches shifted from the stability-focused practices of the 1950s and 1960s to more aggressive cost management in the 1980s and 1990s. This often involved substantial workforce adjustments and organizational restructuring.

?Political Influence and Democratic Processes

?Recent years have seen increased attention to the relationship between economic power and political influence. A 2021 Guardian report documented significant lobbying expenditures by various organizations, including $5 million from the Heritage Foundation's advocacy arm, focusing on voting legislation and state-level electoral policies.

?The debate over whether the United States is an oligarchy remains contentious. While Americans enjoy democratic rights such as voting and free speech, substantial evidence suggests that the wealthy wield disproportionate influence over policymaking. Campaign financing laws, for instance, allow corporations and wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums to political candidates, effectively determining electoral outcomes. Lobbyists further reinforce this dynamic by shaping legislation to benefit corporate interests.

Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page concluded in their landmark 2014 study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” that ordinary citizens have little influence on government policy compared to economic elites. They write, “When a majority of citizens disagree with economic elites or organized interests, they generally lose. Even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they do not get it.” This finding has led many economists and scholars to conclude that while the U.S. retains the trappings of democracy, in practice, it functions as an oligarchy.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?