And believe it all, a microscopic percentage of this country compose the above categories. We can lump them together as subjugation of those without wealth (ridiculed for accepting public assistance), those stuck in the middle class like my friend whose income allocations are described above, most of whose incomes are devoured by at least some of the ocracies--those stuck paying all the taxes, which lower them to near-poverty incomes without qualifying for public assistance.
The ruler is the above conglomerate: wealth. We are governed not by our votes but by dollars, because these days a millionaire might as well have a million votes, or does.
What's so different about that from ages gone by? Hasn't wealth in its many forms (see the above list) always run the show? Hippie clothes and organic foods are both profitable industries, but I believe that a few hippie communes in the wild reaches of this country exist more democratically, growing the food they eat, sewing the clothing that they wear, nursing their babies, and so forth. Their leaders don't inhabit dachas, but live the same lifestyle as do their groups. Greg Mortenson and his group don't wallow in wealth even though they raise millions to educate those starving for education in other remote outposts of existence.
So not quite all of us are diseased by the plutocracy, though admittedly, from time to time, most of the rest of us dance with it.
Who am I to join this fine minority, smaller than the number of millionaires and billionaires put together? Who will become the first trillionaire? Is anyone close to it?
The conglomerate of ocracies mentioned above have collectively exceeded it many times over.
The hippies in their communes have peace of mind, though I wonder if they have insurance. There are all sorts of alternative forms of medicine that work at least as well as do the pharmaceuticals that run through most of our veins to some extent--large, small, or mid-range.
My father once said that he'd rather be rich and miserable than poor and miserable. He also said to always expect the worst and be happy when something better comes along.
How many people alive would rather be rich than poor? Do we all beat our brains out to be elevated to a category that file income tax forms but export their wealth or horde it into tax shelters but manage nonetheless to live mighty high on the hog?
I don't know. This blog entry is about ocracies. How pulled apart we are by our contradictory urges: toward Midas, Socrates, Tom Paine, Jonathan Swift, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Paris Hilton, and many other synecdoches (correct vocab. to signify one standing for many--Midas a synecdoche for wealth?)
These days everything the ocracies touch turns to gold for them only.
Again I ask, what's so unique about plutocracy? Does the twenty-first century own it?
Hardly. What we need is a truetruetrue, realrealreal God-ocracy. I can't define it beyond the neologism (a grade of "D" for neologistic vocabulary in this blog entry, I know).
Were we to allow God to rule and God is as good as people all over the world agree that God is, even the ocrats, then why not hand over this sizzling cesspool we've made out of things, rule by the ocracies, to God?
Would God accept it? Would the ocracies be willing to hand it over? Our churches are so filled with ocrats who think they're fine just as they are. It must be fun to be one of them. Is it, or are they too busy playing King of the Mountain? I wouldn't know. I will leave it at that.