Skip to main content

Power Elitism

By Saqib
Reading Mills' work, it becomes apparent that the abuse of power seems to come from two primary problems with the structure in place today: the concentration of power and the level of power afforded to those in charge.

Regarding power concentration, the founders of the US certainly had a different system in mind when the Republic was started, with multiple checks and balances and the dissolution of power away from the hands of the few. Gradually, this system was corrupted.

The essential dilemma now is that the wealth and size of the state has increased to the point where it is almost impossible to expect that those in the military industrial complex and Big Business are going to respect the separation of powers. I am wondering if a state/empire with this degree of wealth and might can ever be expected to remain corruption-free. In other words, a country of smaller size with less state power has a better chance for the people of the country to exercise democratic rights and pressure those in charge whereas an empire is a beast that simply has outgrown the demands of the people. Any nation it seems with such an outpouring of capital centered around a government structure is almost inevitably going to fall prey to the intoxication of its own strength. Hence, you develop what Mills call a power elite. Is there then some credibility to the claim of those on the right in the US who say that small government with less interference is better?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more