Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Oddly Powerless 'Global Power Elite'

By Doug Henwood, Truthdig. Posted June 28, 2008.


Are we now ruled by an international elite that has left national borders far behind? Don't bother asking author David Rothkopf.
Advertisement

Are we now ruled by an international elite that has left national borders far behind? It's a fashionable view across the political spectrum that enjoys special prominence every January, when the members of that alleged class hold their annual shareholders' meeting in Davos, Switzerland. David Rothkopf, the author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, would strike the alleged from the previous sentence. To him, there's no doubt that this superclass exists and that it's running the show.

We've had a series of books in recent years that amount to little more than a pornography of wealth. But the connection of wealth to actual power is rarely explored. Sure, hedge fund managers can deploy billions, and CEOs can hire and fire thousands, but what is the relation of that narrow economic power to broader political, social and cultural power?

What are the limits to their power? How much are they at the mercy of competitors, impersonal financial markets or personal pressure from large institutional investors? There's definitely a cult of the celebrity CEO, but to what degree are such executives embedded in a system larger than they are (i.e., mere personifications of capital, in Marx's excellent phrase)?

For Rothkopf, the emergence of a superclass isn't the product of struggle or contingency so much as the operation of a law of nature. To prove this, he turns to sociologist and economist Vilfredo Pareto's 80/20 theory: 20 percent of causes are responsible for 80 percent of consequences. The phrasing is vague because Rothkopf sees it as applying to nearly everything; the relevant application here is to explain the distribution of income and ultimately power. In fact, the richest 10 percent of Americans pull down 46 percent of income, but presumably 80/20 is close enough for trade publishing. And Rothkopf sees no need to disclose the fact that Pareto was profoundly anti-democratic, was in love with violence and was greatly admired by Mussolini. Since the class question has been solved, no need to bring up such embarrassments.

Superclass proper opens in Davos -- not in one of the meeting halls, but in a fondue joint at the edge of town. It's funny to think of the hyper-elite engaging in such middlebrow cuisine (though I suppose the Swiss get a pass on that class judgment), but I guess the point is that at some level they're just folks too. Rather than linger over the bubbling cheese, Rothkopf quickly moves on to C. Wright Mills, whose 1956 book The Power Elite (still in print, still selling briskly) provides a vague template for Rothkopf's investigation. I say vague because while the Rothkopf book is full of the personalities that Mills' book is lacking, it shows none of the rigor of the original. (And none of the style, either.) Although Rothkopf shows some admiration for the first half of Mills' book, he laments the way the second half "veers into polemic." Imagine being annoyed by an elite hell-bent on accumulation and violence! None of that in this book, whose North Star is "balance."

But Rothkopf also declares Mills' book to be obsolete because it's focused entirely on the national ruling class; today's power elite is global. Besides, the class-struggle question has been settled with the fall of the Soviet Union, you see; now our central battle is national versus global.

Certainly there's some degree of truth to this critique of Mills, but Rothkopf mainly relies on asserting that putative fact over and over, while trusting the reader's preconceptions to make the case. But to what degree has the U.S. elite, or any other national elite, left the nation-state behind? Politics still remain heavily national. Most senior U.S. corporate executives live in their headquarters country and write checks to the campaigns of politicians whose ambitions focus on Washington, not the United Nations or the World Trade Organization. The frequency of currency crises around the world suggests that national economies are far from seamlessly globalized. When Bear Stearns hit a wall, it was the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury that stepped in to craft a rescue. Even the international machinations of the International Monetary Fund are directed to a large degree by the U.S. Treasury; as the late MIT economist Rudi Dornbusch once put it, "The IMF is a toy of the United States to pursue its economic policy offshore." Neither the IMF nor the United States are quite what they were in the 1980s and 1990s, but sometimes it seems that the borderless world exists mainly in fantasy. Even Rothkopf is compelled to wonder early in the book if Davos is just a "once-a-year Brigadoon of globalization," but he never lets the question get in the way of his argument.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global power elite, david rothkopf

Doug Henwood edits the Left Business Observer and is the author of After the New Economy (New Press, 2004) and Wall Street: How It Works and For Whom (Verso, 1997, now available for free download at www.wallstreetthebook.com). He also hosts "Behind the News," broadcast on WBAI, New York. He is working on a book on America's modern power elite.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
if the article had begun by citing Rothkopf's amazing description of Kissinger
Posted by: Suzon on Jun 28, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no one would have read any further. Why waste time on reading or discussing a book by such an utterly inane writer? It does sound like Rothkopf is too close to the elites to be able to think clearly.

What may be more interesting is the fact that the book was written and published at all. The internet has given much useful information to those of us in the 99.99999 per cent who are interested in power and governance. Rothkopf's book smells a bit like a damage-limitation exercise.

You can download a fascinating Victorian document which could be described as The Aristocrats' Manifesto, "defending" as it does the privileges of the elite. They are entitled to retain and increase their wealth and power because they have either inherited it ("patrimony") or bought it ("redemption").

"Might makes right" is a pretty lame argument, but it's the best that the elites can muster. Not that I feel all that sorry for them.

The good news is that proverty, crime and war are not as inevitable as we've been led to believe. By racheting up their fear-based greed, the elites have drawn attention to themselves as never before and public exposure is the one thing that may set us all free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oddly Pointless Blather
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Jun 28, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“The book is desperately lacking in analysis or argument, and one finishes hardly any wiser than one was on first having picked it up. It's less a book than an anthology of listicles, and an awkwardly written one, too.”

I’m no fan of Rothkopf but one could say the same of Doug Henwood’s empty blank of a column. It is virtually devoid of any meaningful “analysis or argument” never mind fact and history necessary to make any useful observation on the subject he covers.

Henwood trashes his subject as we’re left with mealy-mouthed impressions of how clever Henwood appears to take himself and precious little else. The only thing he’s apparently sure of here is that:

“…the conspiracy theorists of left and right, who've sullied the very notion of what sociologists call power structure research. Fair enough, they have.”

So he trashes “conspiracy theorists” without naming any of them or their supposed “conspiracy” work. How convenient. And how completely limp.

“A book like this should investigate the machinery of power, but it ends up treating it all as something of a black box.”

In turn, Henwood seems to admit to the idea of some kind of “elite” class but takes the usual two-faced “black box” dodge resold by what amounts to a criminal Mockingbird MSM responsible for pumping faux “war on terror” for corporate genocide on the public dime.

In other words, there really isn’t much of an organized “ruling class” according to Henwood. Top private “elites” around the world that run central banks, Big Oil, Big MSM, etc, and therefore state policy across the board are really just random corporate artistes that occasionally get together to compare shareholdings, tans and golf scores.

How cozy.

It appears Henwood’s pointless observations haven’t caught on in the Mid East where up to a million have died. At Henwood World, rodeo clown GW Bush was not a temp stooge puppet and 9/11 “war on terror” wasn’t an utter fraud of a thousand lies . And of course, Kissinger’s weekly visits were about bowling and shuffleboard.

Recycling fantasy is so much more profitable than insight, it seems. Even for supposed journalists that contribute zero but red herring blather.

What would the Kool-Aid State do without them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» An Informed Majority Is Never Alone Posted by: paulmagillsmith
Who
Posted by: billgee on Jun 28, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A list must have specific names

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not global?
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 28, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I doubt I would read this book, the new power-elite is not global? What about the secret tribunals set up by NAFTA that can challenge a local, state or federal law if it hurts trade. For instance, a company named Metalclad wanted to operate a waste facility in Mexico. The town people did not want it their. Metalclad sued Mexico and won. Business trumped local laws and most of our representatives did not even know this provision was in there, or what they were voting for:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tdfull.html
True, as of now this only affects Canada, the U.S. and Mexico so it is not truly international, but they are working on it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HDELMAR
Posted by: hughseay on Jun 28, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has no one heard of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, the modern version of the British East India Company?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Henwood is a great writer. He is a harsh critic of stupidity on both the right and the left.
Posted by: yellow on Jun 28, 2008 1:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book seems like it is a vulgar, though non-conspiracist, view of the global elite from an instrumentalist perspective. That is to say the perspective of the book sees the global elite as a class of individuals whose collective power allows them direct control of policy making and content. This view corresponds roughly to Marx's simple late 19th century observation that "the state is but the executive committee of the whole ruling class."

Structuralists deny the existance of direct influence on policy making and outcomes through personal influence and intervention. Instead, the political system as a whole is conditioned to automatically respond to the immediate needs of capital to ensure the rate of profit while balancing conflicting interests between capital and labor and between various conflicting fractions of capital. Thus, the state is able to distance itself from the immediate interests of specific powerful individuals and focus on the stability of late capitalism as a system. What gives the state this ability to remain aloof from specific interests in the process of protecting the capitalist system as a whole is said to be its relative autonomy from these powerful interests. This particular neo-Marxist school is called structuralism and includes thinkers such as Nicos Poulantzas, Louis Althussier and Etienne Balibar. Marxian structuralism does not assign utter determinancy to "the economic base" of society but rather recognizes a wide array of societal structures as possessing causal importance. The state is one such structure.

Poulantzas, who did the most work on the state, used Gramsci's idea of ideological hegemony in explaining the unique ability of the capitalist state to gain the acquiescence of the working class by legitimating the system through cultural domination. The state gets the workers to identify with the bourgeousie, who extend their cultural sphere throughout the society in the long historic process of capitalist economic development. The state secures the loyalty of the workers in its role as the ideological hegemon.

Sociologist William I. Robinson, author of A Theory of Global Capitalism, takes a structuralist Marxist approach to the issue of global elites in describing the emergence of the transnational state, particularly in the form of the WTO. In the earlier post-WWII era of national capitalism, international organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank and the GATT were instrumental in organizing international trade and investment regimes on behalf of national capitalism. The Gatt ensured an open world economy through its opposition to tariffs while the World Bank funded infrastructural projects in the third world making foreign direct investment by multinational corporations based in the rich countries more feasible. The IMF was orignally established to stabilize long term balance of payments deficits by shifting resources to chronically deficit countries to relieve imbalances caused by declining terms of trade between rich and poor nations. Instead it became a global collection agent for big banks operating in the third world. In addition, the IMF forced structural adjustments on the third world which only furthered their existing dependency on foreign capital and increased concentration of income and assets world wide.

Robinson sees the WTO as part of the transnational state in the global epoch. Transnational class formation in late global capitalism links the elites of the third world with those of the first world in a single global circuit of capital eliminating national boundaries and creating a world of social classes instead of nation-states. The state is still relatively autonomous in mediating class cooperation in this task. It is just no longer a nation-state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The elites may be trans national but the citizens are not.
Posted by: nightgaunt on Jun 28, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The oligarchs may lose sight of the fact of nationalism which could hurt them in the future. So far as long as transnational organizations controlled by a few maintain control they will prosper. It is good to see many have become wise to the game and have gotten out from under the IMF and World Bank in recent years. Especially in south America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I worked too hard on my post to get a 1. Surely the famous Prof. Stallings would have awarded me a 5
Posted by: yellow on Jun 28, 2008 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If for no other reason than the quality of the literature review. I also thought that I put the entire debate on global elites and their political significance in an enlightening perspective. Structuralist vs. Instrumentalist Marxism should be a debate Alternet Users should be having.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You got a 1 because . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: You got a 1 because . . . Posted by: pdxstudent
OH BOY!
Posted by: rideyourbike11 on Jun 28, 2008 10:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So there's no big problem there.

Whew!

Glad I don't have to worry about those guys anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elitism
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jun 29, 2008 11:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know that "elitism" was originally given its political charge by Nixon and George Wallace to basically turn the South more thoroughly against the Left? It didn't exist until 1950, when used in a much more subdued context by David Riesman to connect Freud to Nietzsche and Thomas Carlyle. C. Wright Mills talks about the Power Elite, and perhaps gives it its roots as a politically-charged word, but he says nothing of "elitism." It takes a reactive scum-bag like Richard Nixon to turn a word that on its face signifies glorification of what is best into a word that demonizes it.

The people in power aren't elite; "elite" implies a set of values and behaviors that you don't find among the powerful anymore--nobility, courage, integrity. They're fucking rich, for one thing, but any Regular Joe can be fucking rich if you give him (or if he steals) enough money. The powerful have more in common with the common-people than the common-people like to think. I always imagined the disdain for "elitism" to be a kind of self-hatred. That's what Richard Nixon used it to generate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Young Americans are dieing in Iraq- Are we fighting for Democracy?
Posted by: cori on Jul 3, 2008 7:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we let this war rollover us and ten's of thousands are dieing and injured, what are we doing to save our Democracy? I email and call my senators everyday, I sign petitions, I try! Hope U are too. We are sitting on the 2nd biggest oil deposit in the world, paying for corporations private armies while oil companies are making record profits and Russia and China are sunsidizing oil for their people. Not to mention the blank check that congress is giving this gang of thieves! And they just cut 10% from Medicare while giving billions to the military. How do you want your tax dollars spent! By the way those Blue Dog Democrats are voting for a Bush agenda. Lets get rid of them. We are being sucked dry and we will be their collateral damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]