On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> On 10/2/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>>
>> > I think, using Yoshie's rough distinction between power elite and
>> > ruling
>> > class, that it is the _latter_ that should be subject to this
>> debate.
>> > Power Elite is _normal_ politics (analogous to "normal science")
>>
>> That's not Mills' definition, if such things matter to you.
>
> This is the way Mills put it: "[T]hey [the power elite] are in command
> of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society. They
> rule the big corporations. They run the machinery of the state and
> claim its prerogatives. They direct the military establishment." It's
> clear that only a minority of the members of the capitalist class
> occupy such positions, even if we limited ourselves only to US
> capitalists. Hence it makes sense to distinguish the power elite, who
> actually run major political and economic institutions, most of whom
> are American, and the capitalist class (i.e., the ruling class) who
> have invested in the USA, the latter of whom are multinational.
Mills explicitly rejected the concept of a "ruling class" of capitalists, which is why he used the term power elite. Many Marxists have criticized him for this choice - I'd say he was wrong to include top generals, since they mostly follow orders, but I would include top political figures in any ruling class because the state often takes the lead when capital is timid or uncertain (e.g. the invasion of Iraq, or the British state's prosecution of WW I against the wishes of the City of London) - but his power elite is a kind of secular holy trinity.
Doug