Approfondimento: What exactly is power?
Power
The word power is a common word in everyday speech and we think little of its meaning. Its meaning is for many unproblematic, so unproblematic that it's hardly worth consideration. The concept of power is self evident, part of our commonsense (taken for granted) knowledge about the world in which we live. We talk of some people having power while others do not. Power is talked of as if it was something inherent in people! Yet as we shall see power is many thing to many people. Once we have come to some understanding of what power is, or what Marxists believe it to be, we will look at the more important question of how is power distributed and the mechanisms of power.
Before we go any further some features of the commonsense definition of power must be taken to task. We are apt to think of power as something that some people have, just like some people have physical strength or a bad temper. This is not the most useful way to think of power. Power should be thought of as existing in social relationships, that is, within the realm of social interaction. To put it simply, Robinson Crusoe did not have power until he met Man Friday, then he became a powerful man, at least with regard to his newly found "friend". Power exists within social relationships not outside of them. Power does not reside within people nor does it float about landing on the unsuspecting. Thus, when I speak of people or classes having power what I mean is power within a social relationship.
Max Weber
One of the most influential definitions of power has been that given by the German sociologist Max Weber. Weber holds a constant sum model of power, that is, he defines power as something that some have at the expense of others. As we shall see later Marxists also hold a constant sum definition of power. Everyone cannot be powerful, if some group of people has power then this means that some other group does not. Power is thus a finite resource. He defines power thus:
the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action
This is perhaps the most influential definition of power and as we shall see forms part of the pluralist theory of the distribution of power in capitalist society. But first we must look more closely at this definition.
Power according to Weber is a finite resource. Some have power while others do not. Power also involves people doing things that they would not otherwise do: getting your way "even against the resistance of others". Thus, it is implicit in his definition that power is only exercised when people are forced to do things that they would not otherwise do. For example, let's say that there are a group of students who want to go out for the night. Some of them want to go to a pub, the others want to go to a club. An argument ensues and the relative merits of both options are discussed. Perhaps even certain threats are made, alliances are created and so on. Eventually one half accepts to do what the other half wants but does so only under duress. This would be an exercise of what Weber calls power. Power thus involves a conflict of wants. Implicit in this definition is that where consensus freely exists we are not to find power.
The Distribution of Power
The dominant political and academic view of the distribution of power rests upon this definition of power as outlined by Weber. But what is this dominant view of the distribution of power within capitalist society? The dominant conception of the distribution of power is known as pluralism. Those who hold this theory see capitalist society as being divided or fragmented up into a whole range of different interest groups. With increased specialisation, industrialisation, so society becomes more complex. Different categories of people have different interests and policy preferences which may not involves interests at all. These different categories of people can establish interest groups or pressure groups which can in turn influence the decision making process. Power is fragmented between these different interest groups thus the term pluralism.
The role of the state in this fragmentation of power is seen in a very positive light. The state is conceived as akin to the diplomat, an honest broker. The state mediates between these different interest groups. It attempts to (within reason) come to some sort of compromise. This comprise may well come down on the side of one interest group at any given time but over the long run all interest groups will have their policy preferences reflected in the decisions of the state. But as we shall see there is a certain bias (a certain answer is more likely) inherent in their theory which results from their conception of power, and the method they use to determine the distribution of power. Let's now examine some pluralist research and the premises/methods upon which it is based.
Pluralist Research
As we noted before implicit in the definition of power as given by Max Weber is that the exercise of power involves not just people, social relationships, but also a conflict of desires. Where consensus exists, real consensus, power does not manifest itself. Pluralists therefore reason that if the decision taken by a government, or state, were to reflect the wishes of a given interest group, or social group or class, then this would mean that this group had power in its relationship with the state. As a result of such reasoning their empirical research concentrates upon decision making, comparing decisions reached with the stated wishes of the interested parties. For example, lets say the CBI wanted to cut down on labour rights while the trade unions, TUC, wanted greater worker rights. If the government, or state, consistently took up the position of cutting back such rights we might argue that the CBI has greater power, with regard to the state than the trade unions.
Perhaps the best way to explain the method of pluralist research is to give an example of empirical research. Christopher Hewitt has conducted pluralist research into the political decision making process in Britain. His research is typical of most pluralist research. Hewitt examined the decisions reached by the British parliament, with regard to a wide range of policies, from the 1940s until the 1960s. He compared the decisions reached by Parliament with the policy preferences of the various interest groups involved and also with public opinion. His conclusion was that no one interest group consistently got its own way all of the time. Thus he concluded that the pluralist view of power was the most accurate with regard to Britain.
So as we see the pluralist method is now laid bare before us. Power is to be gauged by the overt decision making of the various state bodies and judged in its distribution by comparison with interest groups preferences and public opinion. The method argue Marxists determine the outcome to a large extent.
The Marxist or Radical View of Power
Marxists and conflict theorists criticize this pluralist definition of power, and their methods of determining the distribution of power, for a number of reasons.
1. Non-decision making
2. Outcome of decisions
3. Shaping desires
Non-Decision making
Marxists criticize the pluralist method/conception of power because it ignores non-decision making. Power is more than just the ability to make sure certain decisions reflect your own preferences. Power is also the ability to make sure that certain decisions are never reached, the ability to set the agenda. By controlling what is discussed, what issues and what solutions, you can control the eventual outcome of any decision making process. Marxists would argue that the fact that there has never been a genuine debate about the relative merits of the two systems, socialism and capitalism, as evidence that some can set the agenda.
A good example of setting the agenda, one that I personally experienced, is with regard to the local press and education. In Northern Ireland we still have the education system that Britain got rid of many decades ago. The education system is so unjust and unfair that a majority of all teachers and the population now oppose it. The local media, however, support it with every column inch printed. When interested parties, those who wish to see a change in the local education system, write into the paper in order to start some sort of debate the letters are not printed. The editor simply gets the letters and puts them in the bin. As a result the agenda is set and a change in the education system is not on it. You can discuss the state of the roads (how important!) but not the state of your child's education.
Outcome of Decisions
Marxists are also critical of the pluralist method of determining the distribution of power because they look only at the decision itself. It may well be that many decisions (this can be disputed!) reflect the interests of the working-class, and other less "powerful" pressure groups, yet this means little. To give a rather good contemporary example, the Foreign Secretary may well decide upon an ethical foreign policy but his actions would suggest otherwise. The state may well reach a number of decisions but what is important is if they are put in place, their effectiveness. For example, the government (not the present Labour one!) might decide to try and achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth by taxing the wealthy and making employers pay more. They might legislate this policy through parliament. Yet, the wealthy may just get their accountants to work the books so that they pay as little as possible. Employers may just break the law and refuse to pay their workers anymore. If the government does not enforce the legislation, or does not enforce it strongly enough, then their decision is null and void.
Marxists argue that it is not enough to simply look at the decision reached you also have to look at the results of such decisions. We might reason that if a given decision is never really put into effect that the social group concerned has the power to prevent it.
Shaping Desires
The last aspect of the Marxist or Radical criticism of the pluralist method neatly dovetails with Steven Lukes radical definition of power. Steven Lukes has formulated a definition of power that most Marxists would probably accept. Power for Lukes has three aspects or as he calls them "faces". First, this is how Lukes defines power:
"A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests." (even if B is unaware of this).
The first face is that of decision making which we already know about. Lukes would accept, to a certain extent, that if an interest groups interests are reflected in the decision making process than they have a degree of power in relation to the decision making body.
The second face is that of non-decision making which we have also examined. Lukes would also accept that power is more than just the ability to shape decisions it can also involve setting the agenda so that certain decisions are never reached.
The third face of power involves something of a radical departure from the Weberian definition of power. Power is also according to Luke the ability to shape the desires of others so that they accord with your own, and are contrary to the individuals or social groups interests.
Marxists and the Third Face
Lukes definition of power is a definition that most Marxists could probably agree with. Most Marxists would agree with the view that power is more than mere decision making, it is also the ability to shape desires. Where there is agreement pluralists call it consensus Marxists prefer to call it what it is, false consciousness. In order to understand this shaping of desires we must first examine the concept of interests. What are interests?
By interests I do not mean their hobbies! Interests refer to certain things which are beneficial to a given individual, social group or class. For Marxists classes have certain interests, members of classes thus have interests in common. Classes, however, do not share common interests because they do not share a common relationship to the means of production. In capitalist society some own the means of production (capitalists) while other must sell their labour-power for a wage (the workers). One seeks to raise profits by keeping wages low the other seeks high wages in order to keep their living standard high. Marxists hold an objective conception of interests, that is, there are certain interests which are the workers real interests whether they realise it or not. The worker may well think that a minimum wage and good working conditions are not in their interest but for Marxists it is obvious that such measures are in their interests.
Let's say that a person is told to stick their head in the fire. This person is utterly convinced that sticking their head in the fire is what they should do. Those around the person have told them that by doing this they will benefit themselves to a great extent. The Marxist is the kind of person who stands up and says: "Don't stick your head in the fire it will burn you!" The Marxist thus has an objective conception of interests. Is the worker who votes for a conservative party time after time, while opposing every effort by the trade unions to increase wages, any different from the man or woman who wishes to stick their head in the fire?
The Marxist View of the Distribution of Power
Marxists do not believe that power is fragmented in capitalist societies like the pluralists argue. For Marxists, such as Ralph Miliband, power is held by the capitalist class. Power derives from wealth making political equality one of the many myths that dominate our conception of capitalist society. Those who own the means of production form a ruling class. The state is not the honest broker but an instrument of the capitalist class or at the very least the state takes those decisions which in the majority favour the interests of the capitalist class. But how is ownership of capital translated into power?
The Mechanisms of Power
The capitalist class, those who own and/or control the means of production it is true do not "govern but contents itself instead with ruling the government". There are three mechanisms by which this can be achieved:
Control Over Resources
The capitalist class has at its disposal certain resources, that is, the means of production. It controls the means of production or to put it slightly differently it controls the flow of capital. It can if it wishes invest its capital but equally if it so wishes it can withdraw its capital from circulation. The decision of when to invest, where to invest and how much to invest is one that is made by the capitalist class. If the state were to seriously challenge the interests of the capitalist class then the capitalist class could quite conceivably withdraw its capital from circulation. As a result capital accumulation would slow, output would fall, and unemployment would soar. The government of the day would be ruined. Even if it survived it would be promptly voted out of office at the next general election. The state also has its own project which it can only achieve with the cooperation of the capitalist class. As a result the state will not take decisions that go against the interests of the capitalist class.
Capitalist control over the means of production also means that one class has much greater wealth than the other. This wealth, in the form of profit, can be used in the political sphere. It is well known that the conservative parties of the world are financed largely by private industry. It now appears that many former Left wing parties, such as the British Labour party, are increasingly attracting big business investment. This money acts as a kind of tacit bribe, in some cases a rather explicit and manifest bribe. If you don't annoy the capitalist class they will reward you generously. Any party receiving large sums of money from private industry is unlikely to be critical towards the same system that brings such money flowing into their funds.
Control over Ideas
Any regime which rules by might alone is never a regime that will last the course of time. Might must, to give a cliché, be turned into right. compulsion into duty. The process by which this is achieved, whether it be in China or "free" America, can be called indoctrination. The means of mental production, the media, do not have to be totally monopolized in order that indoctrination occur. There need only be a one sided domination of the media, and other institutions of civil society, in order that indoctrination occur. In capitalist societies we find that, as in China, the media is owned, and controlled, by a particular section of society. The capitalist class control the means of mental production and through this control they propagate and foster what Marxists call a ruling class ideology.
What exactly is this ideology? Marxists use the term in a slightly different way to how most people would use the term. For Marxists ideology is a set of beliefs and values which mask and distort the truth, and which function to preserve the status quo. Such beliefs might include the belief that capitalism is the most efficient economic system or that the free market ensures democracy.
With this in mind even a cursory glance at the national press reveals that the vast majority of newspapers, judged in terms of circulation and number of titles, reflect the interests of the capitalist class. It may well appear, in the case of the tabloids, that political news is almost completely lacking from the newspaper. This is a misleading argument as even within the most sleazy tabloid newspaper there is to be found political journalism. In some articles that appear not to favour any political party it is clear that a certain state of affairs, parliamentary democracy and the free market economy, are supported. Implicit within many "apolitical" articles is to be found a subtext.
By controlling the beliefs and values of a population you control their actions. Control over the thoughts of an entire population is the most complete form of control. If people are convinced enough of the virtues of capitalism and the free market economy then they will never question any aspect of it. The capitalist class need never actually intervene in any given situation as those who occupy positions of political power hold the same outlook as they do. The state need never shoot down a single protesting worker if the worker so encultured with ruling class ideology never actually protests about any issue. Ideology is both an example of the power of the capitalist class and a mechanism for maintaining that power.
Control of the State
Many people use the term state and government interchangeably. One potential consequence of this is the assumption that a change in government equals a change in the whole state system. This is not the case. Only a certain number of institutions and positions of power within the state system are ones based on election. Ralph Miliband, in his early work at least, argues that one of the reasons why the state is an instrument of the ruling-class is because those who occupy state elite positions are predominantly drawn from the ranks of the upper and middle classes.
There are a given number of positions within the state system which bring with them power and authority. Such positions are what Miliband calls the state elite. The state elite consists of: judges, cabinet ministers or government, senior civil servants, top military officers and senior ranking police officers. Those who occupy such positions tend to be drawn from a certain background. Many will actually come from the capitalist class itself and there is no shortage of former businessmen in politics.
In his book, The State in Capitalist Society, Miliband points to the fact that as you ascend the hierarchy of any political party you find that as you go up each level there are less and less people from humble backgrounds. Even those from humble backgrounds will have to have gone through a process of bourgeoisification, that is, they must have become like the capitalist class in their outlook. The capitalist class is also a ruling class because it seeks, and occupies, the state elite positions. Its power derives from the fact that it has assumed the positions of authority and power within the state system.
Conclusion
As we see there are two competing theories on the distribution of power. Their results, it would seem, are very much entangled with their conception of power and the methodology used in their empirical research. My own view is that their are certain interests, which are peoples real interests. It is easy enough, in many cases, to know what these interests are. Any definition of power which overlooks objective interests by concentrating solely upon the first face of power is simply not adequate. Any definition that leaves out the possibility that one section of society can shape the desires of the other is also inadequate. Power is more than simply the ability to get your way against the will of others, power is also the ability to shape the desires of others, against their own objective interests.
The word power is a common word in everyday speech and we think little of its meaning. Its meaning is for many unproblematic, so unproblematic that it's hardly worth consideration. The concept of power is self evident, part of our commonsense (taken for granted) knowledge about the world in which we live. We talk of some people having power while others do not. Power is talked of as if it was something inherent in people! Yet as we shall see power is many thing to many people. Once we have come to some understanding of what power is, or what Marxists believe it to be, we will look at the more important question of how is power distributed and the mechanisms of power.
Before we go any further some features of the commonsense definition of power must be taken to task. We are apt to think of power as something that some people have, just like some people have physical strength or a bad temper. This is not the most useful way to think of power. Power should be thought of as existing in social relationships, that is, within the realm of social interaction. To put it simply, Robinson Crusoe did not have power until he met Man Friday, then he became a powerful man, at least with regard to his newly found "friend". Power exists within social relationships not outside of them. Power does not reside within people nor does it float about landing on the unsuspecting. Thus, when I speak of people or classes having power what I mean is power within a social relationship.
Max Weber
One of the most influential definitions of power has been that given by the German sociologist Max Weber. Weber holds a constant sum model of power, that is, he defines power as something that some have at the expense of others. As we shall see later Marxists also hold a constant sum definition of power. Everyone cannot be powerful, if some group of people has power then this means that some other group does not. Power is thus a finite resource. He defines power thus:
the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action
This is perhaps the most influential definition of power and as we shall see forms part of the pluralist theory of the distribution of power in capitalist society. But first we must look more closely at this definition.
Power according to Weber is a finite resource. Some have power while others do not. Power also involves people doing things that they would not otherwise do: getting your way "even against the resistance of others". Thus, it is implicit in his definition that power is only exercised when people are forced to do things that they would not otherwise do. For example, let's say that there are a group of students who want to go out for the night. Some of them want to go to a pub, the others want to go to a club. An argument ensues and the relative merits of both options are discussed. Perhaps even certain threats are made, alliances are created and so on. Eventually one half accepts to do what the other half wants but does so only under duress. This would be an exercise of what Weber calls power. Power thus involves a conflict of wants. Implicit in this definition is that where consensus freely exists we are not to find power.
The Distribution of Power
The dominant political and academic view of the distribution of power rests upon this definition of power as outlined by Weber. But what is this dominant view of the distribution of power within capitalist society? The dominant conception of the distribution of power is known as pluralism. Those who hold this theory see capitalist society as being divided or fragmented up into a whole range of different interest groups. With increased specialisation, industrialisation, so society becomes more complex. Different categories of people have different interests and policy preferences which may not involves interests at all. These different categories of people can establish interest groups or pressure groups which can in turn influence the decision making process. Power is fragmented between these different interest groups thus the term pluralism.
The role of the state in this fragmentation of power is seen in a very positive light. The state is conceived as akin to the diplomat, an honest broker. The state mediates between these different interest groups. It attempts to (within reason) come to some sort of compromise. This comprise may well come down on the side of one interest group at any given time but over the long run all interest groups will have their policy preferences reflected in the decisions of the state. But as we shall see there is a certain bias (a certain answer is more likely) inherent in their theory which results from their conception of power, and the method they use to determine the distribution of power. Let's now examine some pluralist research and the premises/methods upon which it is based.
Pluralist Research
As we noted before implicit in the definition of power as given by Max Weber is that the exercise of power involves not just people, social relationships, but also a conflict of desires. Where consensus exists, real consensus, power does not manifest itself. Pluralists therefore reason that if the decision taken by a government, or state, were to reflect the wishes of a given interest group, or social group or class, then this would mean that this group had power in its relationship with the state. As a result of such reasoning their empirical research concentrates upon decision making, comparing decisions reached with the stated wishes of the interested parties. For example, lets say the CBI wanted to cut down on labour rights while the trade unions, TUC, wanted greater worker rights. If the government, or state, consistently took up the position of cutting back such rights we might argue that the CBI has greater power, with regard to the state than the trade unions.
Perhaps the best way to explain the method of pluralist research is to give an example of empirical research. Christopher Hewitt has conducted pluralist research into the political decision making process in Britain. His research is typical of most pluralist research. Hewitt examined the decisions reached by the British parliament, with regard to a wide range of policies, from the 1940s until the 1960s. He compared the decisions reached by Parliament with the policy preferences of the various interest groups involved and also with public opinion. His conclusion was that no one interest group consistently got its own way all of the time. Thus he concluded that the pluralist view of power was the most accurate with regard to Britain.
So as we see the pluralist method is now laid bare before us. Power is to be gauged by the overt decision making of the various state bodies and judged in its distribution by comparison with interest groups preferences and public opinion. The method argue Marxists determine the outcome to a large extent.
The Marxist or Radical View of Power
Marxists and conflict theorists criticize this pluralist definition of power, and their methods of determining the distribution of power, for a number of reasons.
1. Non-decision making
2. Outcome of decisions
3. Shaping desires
Non-Decision making
Marxists criticize the pluralist method/conception of power because it ignores non-decision making. Power is more than just the ability to make sure certain decisions reflect your own preferences. Power is also the ability to make sure that certain decisions are never reached, the ability to set the agenda. By controlling what is discussed, what issues and what solutions, you can control the eventual outcome of any decision making process. Marxists would argue that the fact that there has never been a genuine debate about the relative merits of the two systems, socialism and capitalism, as evidence that some can set the agenda.
A good example of setting the agenda, one that I personally experienced, is with regard to the local press and education. In Northern Ireland we still have the education system that Britain got rid of many decades ago. The education system is so unjust and unfair that a majority of all teachers and the population now oppose it. The local media, however, support it with every column inch printed. When interested parties, those who wish to see a change in the local education system, write into the paper in order to start some sort of debate the letters are not printed. The editor simply gets the letters and puts them in the bin. As a result the agenda is set and a change in the education system is not on it. You can discuss the state of the roads (how important!) but not the state of your child's education.
Outcome of Decisions
Marxists are also critical of the pluralist method of determining the distribution of power because they look only at the decision itself. It may well be that many decisions (this can be disputed!) reflect the interests of the working-class, and other less "powerful" pressure groups, yet this means little. To give a rather good contemporary example, the Foreign Secretary may well decide upon an ethical foreign policy but his actions would suggest otherwise. The state may well reach a number of decisions but what is important is if they are put in place, their effectiveness. For example, the government (not the present Labour one!) might decide to try and achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth by taxing the wealthy and making employers pay more. They might legislate this policy through parliament. Yet, the wealthy may just get their accountants to work the books so that they pay as little as possible. Employers may just break the law and refuse to pay their workers anymore. If the government does not enforce the legislation, or does not enforce it strongly enough, then their decision is null and void.
Marxists argue that it is not enough to simply look at the decision reached you also have to look at the results of such decisions. We might reason that if a given decision is never really put into effect that the social group concerned has the power to prevent it.
Shaping Desires
The last aspect of the Marxist or Radical criticism of the pluralist method neatly dovetails with Steven Lukes radical definition of power. Steven Lukes has formulated a definition of power that most Marxists would probably accept. Power for Lukes has three aspects or as he calls them "faces". First, this is how Lukes defines power:
"A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests." (even if B is unaware of this).
The first face is that of decision making which we already know about. Lukes would accept, to a certain extent, that if an interest groups interests are reflected in the decision making process than they have a degree of power in relation to the decision making body.
The second face is that of non-decision making which we have also examined. Lukes would also accept that power is more than just the ability to shape decisions it can also involve setting the agenda so that certain decisions are never reached.
The third face of power involves something of a radical departure from the Weberian definition of power. Power is also according to Luke the ability to shape the desires of others so that they accord with your own, and are contrary to the individuals or social groups interests.
Marxists and the Third Face
Lukes definition of power is a definition that most Marxists could probably agree with. Most Marxists would agree with the view that power is more than mere decision making, it is also the ability to shape desires. Where there is agreement pluralists call it consensus Marxists prefer to call it what it is, false consciousness. In order to understand this shaping of desires we must first examine the concept of interests. What are interests?
By interests I do not mean their hobbies! Interests refer to certain things which are beneficial to a given individual, social group or class. For Marxists classes have certain interests, members of classes thus have interests in common. Classes, however, do not share common interests because they do not share a common relationship to the means of production. In capitalist society some own the means of production (capitalists) while other must sell their labour-power for a wage (the workers). One seeks to raise profits by keeping wages low the other seeks high wages in order to keep their living standard high. Marxists hold an objective conception of interests, that is, there are certain interests which are the workers real interests whether they realise it or not. The worker may well think that a minimum wage and good working conditions are not in their interest but for Marxists it is obvious that such measures are in their interests.
Let's say that a person is told to stick their head in the fire. This person is utterly convinced that sticking their head in the fire is what they should do. Those around the person have told them that by doing this they will benefit themselves to a great extent. The Marxist is the kind of person who stands up and says: "Don't stick your head in the fire it will burn you!" The Marxist thus has an objective conception of interests. Is the worker who votes for a conservative party time after time, while opposing every effort by the trade unions to increase wages, any different from the man or woman who wishes to stick their head in the fire?
The Marxist View of the Distribution of Power
Marxists do not believe that power is fragmented in capitalist societies like the pluralists argue. For Marxists, such as Ralph Miliband, power is held by the capitalist class. Power derives from wealth making political equality one of the many myths that dominate our conception of capitalist society. Those who own the means of production form a ruling class. The state is not the honest broker but an instrument of the capitalist class or at the very least the state takes those decisions which in the majority favour the interests of the capitalist class. But how is ownership of capital translated into power?
The Mechanisms of Power
The capitalist class, those who own and/or control the means of production it is true do not "govern but contents itself instead with ruling the government". There are three mechanisms by which this can be achieved:
Control Over Resources
The capitalist class has at its disposal certain resources, that is, the means of production. It controls the means of production or to put it slightly differently it controls the flow of capital. It can if it wishes invest its capital but equally if it so wishes it can withdraw its capital from circulation. The decision of when to invest, where to invest and how much to invest is one that is made by the capitalist class. If the state were to seriously challenge the interests of the capitalist class then the capitalist class could quite conceivably withdraw its capital from circulation. As a result capital accumulation would slow, output would fall, and unemployment would soar. The government of the day would be ruined. Even if it survived it would be promptly voted out of office at the next general election. The state also has its own project which it can only achieve with the cooperation of the capitalist class. As a result the state will not take decisions that go against the interests of the capitalist class.
Capitalist control over the means of production also means that one class has much greater wealth than the other. This wealth, in the form of profit, can be used in the political sphere. It is well known that the conservative parties of the world are financed largely by private industry. It now appears that many former Left wing parties, such as the British Labour party, are increasingly attracting big business investment. This money acts as a kind of tacit bribe, in some cases a rather explicit and manifest bribe. If you don't annoy the capitalist class they will reward you generously. Any party receiving large sums of money from private industry is unlikely to be critical towards the same system that brings such money flowing into their funds.
Control over Ideas
Any regime which rules by might alone is never a regime that will last the course of time. Might must, to give a cliché, be turned into right. compulsion into duty. The process by which this is achieved, whether it be in China or "free" America, can be called indoctrination. The means of mental production, the media, do not have to be totally monopolized in order that indoctrination occur. There need only be a one sided domination of the media, and other institutions of civil society, in order that indoctrination occur. In capitalist societies we find that, as in China, the media is owned, and controlled, by a particular section of society. The capitalist class control the means of mental production and through this control they propagate and foster what Marxists call a ruling class ideology.
What exactly is this ideology? Marxists use the term in a slightly different way to how most people would use the term. For Marxists ideology is a set of beliefs and values which mask and distort the truth, and which function to preserve the status quo. Such beliefs might include the belief that capitalism is the most efficient economic system or that the free market ensures democracy.
With this in mind even a cursory glance at the national press reveals that the vast majority of newspapers, judged in terms of circulation and number of titles, reflect the interests of the capitalist class. It may well appear, in the case of the tabloids, that political news is almost completely lacking from the newspaper. This is a misleading argument as even within the most sleazy tabloid newspaper there is to be found political journalism. In some articles that appear not to favour any political party it is clear that a certain state of affairs, parliamentary democracy and the free market economy, are supported. Implicit within many "apolitical" articles is to be found a subtext.
By controlling the beliefs and values of a population you control their actions. Control over the thoughts of an entire population is the most complete form of control. If people are convinced enough of the virtues of capitalism and the free market economy then they will never question any aspect of it. The capitalist class need never actually intervene in any given situation as those who occupy positions of political power hold the same outlook as they do. The state need never shoot down a single protesting worker if the worker so encultured with ruling class ideology never actually protests about any issue. Ideology is both an example of the power of the capitalist class and a mechanism for maintaining that power.
Control of the State
Many people use the term state and government interchangeably. One potential consequence of this is the assumption that a change in government equals a change in the whole state system. This is not the case. Only a certain number of institutions and positions of power within the state system are ones based on election. Ralph Miliband, in his early work at least, argues that one of the reasons why the state is an instrument of the ruling-class is because those who occupy state elite positions are predominantly drawn from the ranks of the upper and middle classes.
There are a given number of positions within the state system which bring with them power and authority. Such positions are what Miliband calls the state elite. The state elite consists of: judges, cabinet ministers or government, senior civil servants, top military officers and senior ranking police officers. Those who occupy such positions tend to be drawn from a certain background. Many will actually come from the capitalist class itself and there is no shortage of former businessmen in politics.
In his book, The State in Capitalist Society, Miliband points to the fact that as you ascend the hierarchy of any political party you find that as you go up each level there are less and less people from humble backgrounds. Even those from humble backgrounds will have to have gone through a process of bourgeoisification, that is, they must have become like the capitalist class in their outlook. The capitalist class is also a ruling class because it seeks, and occupies, the state elite positions. Its power derives from the fact that it has assumed the positions of authority and power within the state system.
Conclusion
As we see there are two competing theories on the distribution of power. Their results, it would seem, are very much entangled with their conception of power and the methodology used in their empirical research. My own view is that their are certain interests, which are peoples real interests. It is easy enough, in many cases, to know what these interests are. Any definition of power which overlooks objective interests by concentrating solely upon the first face of power is simply not adequate. Any definition that leaves out the possibility that one section of society can shape the desires of the other is also inadequate. Power is more than simply the ability to get your way against the will of others, power is also the ability to shape the desires of others, against their own objective interests.
Etichette: corso
posted by RTD at 22:46
<< Home