On Nov 30, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Charles Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:54:16 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Charles Turner wrote:
>>
>>> My original thought was that directors of automotive corporations
>>> wouldn't want to take a position against other members of their
>>> board
>>> who might also sit on insurance or pharmaceutical corporation
>>> boards.
>>
>> I've done some preliminary research into this, with some more still
>> necessary, but I can say that these overlaps just don't seem all that
>> significant. I think the broader class explanation - the US
>> bourgeoisie doesn't want to give an inch to the proles because it
>> might embolden them to ask for more - makes more sense.
>
> Domhoff seems to echo your understanding:
>
> <http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/corporate_community.html
> >
The conclusion of your article doesn't seem echo Doug's read ...
"Conclusion The study of interlocking directors has been useful to power structure researchers in helping us to define the corporate community and to learn something about how boards function. These studies show that many corporate leaders don't just sit at their home corporation attending to their own business. Through meeting together on boards of directors, those who are interlocking directors develop social cohesion and shared perspectives to go with their economic power bases.
I believe this is why such people are the core of the leadership group for the upper class and the corporate community, which I call the "power elite.""