Chip Berlet wrote:
>
>
> For analysts such as C. Wright Mills, G. William Domhoff, Holly Sklar, etc, the ruling class is seen as composed of factions of power elites in constantly-shifting coalitions.
I see nothing wrong with using those categores labelled with those words. As I've already said, I don't like squabbles over verbal definitions. When I read Domhoff or Sklar I have no trouble in following them (or in agreeing with most of their arguments for that matter). But again, I really do not see why this debate is developing here in _this_ context.
Carrol
P.S. Not relevant to my initial post but perhaps relevant to the debate some wish to have:
For some purposes, I believe, it would be necessary to establish your categories (regardless of how labelled) so that in speaking of the u.s. in (say) 1950 we would place John D. Rockefeller III, David Rockefeller, and Nelson Rockefeller _all_ in the same category. But if we place them in the same category, then we would have to place three non-related persons in the same roles (as different as the roles were) in the same category. And in her way, Paris Hilton is in the same social role as John D. Rockefeller, III.