Different sorts of power in society

[apathy maybe]

I am currently writing a piece on the different forms of power in societies and how they interact, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on the subject. The different types I had identified are, political, military, judicial, media and communication, economic/consumptive and productive.

Often these different types are wielded by the same people, often they are separate. While judicial and political power may seem to be similar, at least in "liberal democracies" they are different.

Do you think that I am simplifying the situation, making it too complex, leaving out an essential type of power or whatever?

Can you point me towards any good literature on the subject?

[Marsella]

While judicial and political power may seem to be similar, at least in "liberal democracies" they are different.

What do you mean by that? In my view, they are one since the parliament passes legislation which the judiciary can't avoid. Private property is upheld by the judiciary. Countries like Australia don't have a seperation of powers since the judiciary is appointed by the executive. Moreover, the executive (PM) is part of the legislature. But most importantly the ruling political ideas are merely the interests of the dominant economic class.

Just looking at all the areas of power you mentioned they are all influenced by the economy; they are not autonomous.

If I were to approach the power structures of society I would go:
Economy-> Class -> Political Ideas.

Why not approach it like Marx- the substructure (economy) reflected to the superstructure (morals, ideas, laws etc)?

[apathy maybe]

What do you mean by that? In my view, they are one since the parliament passes legislation which the judiciary can't avoid. Private property is upheld by the judiciary. Countries like Australia don't have a seperation of powers since the judiciary is appointed by the executive. Moreover, the executive (PM) is part of the legislature.There are a number of reasons why I have political and judicial power separate. Yes the legislature passes laws that the judiciary cannot avoid. However, judges can rule that laws are un constitutional. They can make law effectively until the parliament passes a specific law contrary to a ruling. While judges are appointed by the executive, they are appointed for life generally, thus cannot be influenced once they are appointed.

On your other points,

But most importantly the ruling political ideas are merely the interests of the dominant economic class.

Just looking at all the areas of power you mentioned they are all influenced by the economy; they are not autonomous.I disagree, which is why I am attempting to create another conception of power. Yes currently in Australia and other advanced capitalist nations the political power is wielded for those who have economic power. However, it is not always the case. In feudal times political power was wielded for those who had control over land, in the USSR, what was the dominant economic class? Marxian analysis does not cut it, the bureaucracy had not direct relationship to the means of production.

Also, the military is generally subordinate to the political, rather then economic power. While it is the case that the political elite does what the economic elite wants most of the time, it is not all ways the case.

But if we look at places such as Burma, the military have the control and the political and economic power is subordinate to the military. Or in Indonesia before "democracy", the military and political power was wielded by the same group, but not for the potential ruling economic class, but for the actual ruling military/political class.



If I were to approach the power structures of society I would go:
Economy-> Class -> Political Ideas.

Why not approach it like Marx- the substructure (economy) reflected to the superstructure (morals, ideas, laws etc)? The reason I don't approach it like Marx, is because I disagree with Marx. Yes currently the economic elite have lots of power, but not always. If the political and/or military decided to remove any control the economic powers had, they would not be able to do anything. See for example Britain just after WW2.

The reason I am approaching it this way, is because I feel that there are different types of power, they are not all subordinate to the economic system or those who have economic power.


Thanks for replying :)

[apathy maybe]

So does anyone else have anything to say? OK then, I'll post a bit more of a teaser from the article


In a communist society the productive and economic/consumptive power would rest with all in the community. Political, military and judicial power would also rest in the community, but might (depending on how the community is organised) be vested in a particular person or people for particular reasons (such as hunting down a "criminal" or defending from invasion).


Relationship to the means of production is according to Marxists the main criteria for class. In the present capitalist system, those who own the means of production, but do not work it are the ones in power, and the state exists for the purpose of looking after this power. The proletariat the ones who work the means of production but do not own it, are considered to be the sole revolutionary class (some variants of Marxism, such as Maoism, actually consider peasants to also have revolutionary potential).

In the system that I propose, the bourgeois have economic/consumptive power and control over productive power. The proletariat have productive power, but are coerced into not actually having control over it.

I feel that the Marxian system is simplistic and ignores other forms of power outlined above (such as control over media/communication and military power).


Also, I have thought about about culture. Can a single person or group control culture? Does this come under control over media/communications?

Also, at least in some countries (the USA being the obvious example), executive and legislative power are supposed to be separate (though the President can do all sorts of shit without the legislature having to be involved). Should I have two types of political power to take account of this?

[blake 3:17]

Can a single person or group control culture?

No.

You are talking about power in such a broad sense and employing so many institutions which are the product of so many millions of people that it's kinds hard to respond.

A classic Marxist text that I don't think is antithetical to what you've written is Ralph Milliband's The State in Capitalist Society. It's very readable and quite concrete.

Diffused notions of power are probably best expressed by Michel Foucault. Discipline and Punish is about early Modernism's penal system. There are a number of books of interviews with and essays by Foucault -- the interviews are probably the best place to start. His prose is very beautiful and draws on all sorts of arcane knowledge, and in his interviews he has to come right out and say what or sorta what he means. Power/Knowledge is probably the best to start with.

[apathy maybe]

Thanks, I'll look them up. I appreciate the comments.

While you talk of diffused notations of power, surely that is what is meant by Marxists when they talk of ownership of the means of production? No single person owns the means of production, it is a group a "class". I am attempting to discuss more then just the single aspect of power and talk about other types of power.

[chimx]

this no doubt is outside the scope of what you are writing, possibly, but i quite like the following concept, written by Sallie Yea:


The boundaries and borders that define any region, city or nation very rarely have a natural occurrence that prefigures, or is separate from, their construction through the multiple arenas of time, culture, social relations, textual representations and political-economic processes of modernity. These intertwining processes of construction and reconstruction may be called imagined geographies, a term attributable to noted scholar Edward Said. Through the construction of what Said calls "symbolic territories", maps of the imaginary are created in which regions, cities and even whole nations come to be recognised and understood. For Said, texts – which might include anything from travel writings, (government) policy documents, fictional literature and a wide array of other representational modes – assume a central role in the process of helping constitute (other) places. Texts, in other words, are a form of power by which places are made and re-made. But perhaps equally as important for Said, these imaginary maps are intertwined with, support and to some extent help create, the physical existence of places as geographically demarcated and bounded spaces. In short, 'maps of the imaginary' both confirm and help constitute the physical boundaries of places, such that places do not necessarily have an existence that prefigures, or is separate from, the ways they are imagined, thought about and written about.

in this sense, cultural power legitimizes political power.

[apathy maybe]

It is not exactly what I was talking about. But it is interesting and thanks.

The idea of cultural "power" legitimising political power is important. Though, again is culture controlled by a group of people? It could be argued that culture today comes from the media and communication sources, those who control the media control the culture to a large extent. Which is why we are hearing so many US ways of speaking here in Australia.

And again, the culture does legitimise the political and economic system, it is controlled by the people who have a vested interest in keeping things the same.

[BreadBros]

I disagree, which is why I am attempting to create another conception of power. Yes currently in Australia and other advanced capitalist nations the political power is wielded for those who have economic power. However, it is not always the case. In feudal times political power was wielded for those who had control over land,

How is that different? Under feudalism, control over the land was the dominant economic power.


in the USSR, what was the dominant economic class? Marxian analysis does not cut it, the bureaucracy had not direct relationship to the means of production.

The state and it's functionaries. How did the bureaucracy not have a direct relationship with the means of production? It controlled it, it determined its functioning and surplus value was extracted from the working class as a whole by the state as a whole. The difference from traditional capitalism is that production wasn't controlled by individual capitalists in competition but rather by the state/ruling class as a whole who acted as a universal monopoly.



Also, the military is generally subordinate to the political, rather then economic power. While it is the case that the political elite does what the economic elite wants most of the time, it is not all ways the case.

Can you give some examples? I don't see any clear case of political power being differentiated from economic power.


But if we look at places such as Burma, the military have the control and the political and economic power is subordinate to the military. Or in Indonesia before "democracy", the military and political power was wielded by the same group, but not for the potential ruling economic class, but for the actual ruling military/political class.

Military juntas are just cases where militaries use their power to take over economic control of the nation. I dont understand your statement that "the political and economic power is subordinate to the military" since in Burma, the military is the political and economic power. Factional fights amongst the bourgeoisie over how best to run an economy are rife and the presence of capitalists who may prefer a free and laissez-faire economy isn't a contradiction to Marxist analysis.


The reason I don't approach it like Marx, is because I disagree with Marx. Yes currently the economic elite have lots of power, but not always. If the political and/or military decided to remove any control the economic powers had, they would not be able to do anything. See for example Britain just after WW2.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you view economic power as relating to a certain group of individuals instead of as being part of a structure. If the military (who may come from proletarian backgrounds) takes over the economic rule of a country (as every military junta ever has done) this isn't a change in power structures, it just means that one group of capitalist has been deposed and replaced by a new one, the same economic structure is still in existence. The only change is that the military is now a corporate entity cohesive with the economic rule of a country in a closer way than before. The "economic powers" of a country are a structure, not a group of individuals. If every single capitalist in the US was imprisoned today, stripped of their power, and some proletarians took over their capital, this doesn't mean the economic powers were "removed", it means that control of the economic powers has shifted to a new group of capitalists.


Also, I have thought about about culture. Can a single person or group control culture? Does this come under control over media/communications?

No, culture and societal relations are determined by economic structure, not by individuals.


Also, at least in some countries (the USA being the obvious example), executive and legislative power are supposed to be separate (though the President can do all sorts of shit without the legislature having to be involved). Should I have two types of political power to take account of this?

If you want, your entire analysis is rather arbitrary and only takes into account superficial reality and not actual material determinants. In a Marxist analysis both of these forms of "power" are really just the functioning mechanisms of economic power.


in this sense, cultural power legitimizes political power.

Thats because cultural ideas and artistic commodities are reflective and representative of the economic mode of production that produced them. Culture itself is often just the articulation of material reality.



The idea of cultural "power" legitimising political power is important. Though, again is culture controlled by a group of people? It could be argued that culture today comes from the media and communication sources, those who control the media control the culture to a large extent. Which is why we are hearing so many US ways of speaking here in Australia.

Its difficult to respond since you seem to be talking about two different things and your entire notion of power is extremely arbitrary. In the immediate, yes, the transmission and dispensation of culture is controlled by a group of people, large capitalist entities. This is the direct control of the media by the capitalist class. As a whole, the dominant culture reflects the dominant ideas of society due to the fact that capitalists are they main producers of cultural commodities (films, books, etc). Even cultural commodities outside of capitalist production are reflective of the mode of production that produced them however. For a good analysis you should read into what some of the French New Wave filmmakers wrote about film and how all films are political, you could probably find some of this in any issue of 'Cahiers du Cinema'.

[YSR]

Thinking about mentioning the concept of "counter-power"? David Graebor's Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology is a great reference in that regard, as well as a great read.

[chimx]

Can you give some examples? I don't see any clear case of political power being differentiated from economic power.

"although the us government had strongly backed Rhee's rise to power, it did not always agree with his policies. us policy makers felt strongly that rhee should adopt an austerity budget in order to create an inflation-free environment for private investors. rhee disagreed, leading the u.s. government to periodically threaten to reduce its aid program." -landsburg

the result, foreign investment to the ROK from the Korean war up until the early 60s was next to non-existant and was instead kept afloat by direct american aid.

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:23 am

Can you give some examples? I don't see any clear case of political power being differentiated from economic power.

"although the us government had strongly backed Rhee's rise to power, it did not always agree with his policies. us policy makers felt strongly that rhee should adopt an austerity budget in order to create an inflation-free environment for private investors. rhee disagreed, leading the u.s. government to periodically threaten to reduce its aid program." -landsburg

the result, foreign investment to the ROK from the Korean war up until the early 60s was next to non-existant and was instead kept afloat by direct american aid.
Thats a great examle of US economic imperialism, but I dont see how it differentiates between political and economic power somehow being distinct within capitalist society. It was a disagreement in policy, which happens all the time (for example, different factions of the bourgeoisie are at this moment fighting with each other over how to manage the war in Iraq and the direction of US foreign policy). Ultimately the political institution was merely a tool and part of the ruling class's power. Furthermore, the imperialist aspect muddles things up. If anything it could be construed as a conflict between the Korean bourgeoisie which sought to establish itself internationally and the US ruling class which was more focused on reaping it's own profits from it's aid to ROK.

[blueeyedboy]

I live in England and I think media power is arguably the greatest tool of the ruling class. To me, it seems like us humans get fed bullcrap and we take it all in, no matter what. The majority of us don't question things, but just go along with it. It feels like it's inate that we don't question things. We are like robots, as soon as a new flippin product comes on TV, we get up and walk to the nearest place we can find it and buy it. That's what needs to stop and the key words are consumerism and media. If it's possible to control people in this way, then the media can make us believe and do anything, regardless of culture or whatever. If they say Capitalism is good, and feed us with a little bit of why it is good, then we will beleive it becuase of the power of the media. Of course, us on here are the exception to the rule.

What are people's thoughts on the media?

[apathy maybe]

Thanks for the responses, I don't really have time to respond to them properly, but I will try latter.

BreadBros: You seem to be arguing that political power (and military power) is subordinate to economic power. That is, the people who control the economy control politics as well (though possibly through an intermediary). However, it is perfectly possible that it is vice versa, that is the people who control the political power, control the economy. Now while you could argue that you end up with the same situation (in that the power is being controlled by the same people), I disagree. In one, the people in control (the ruling classes) are in it for possessions, money and power. In another, people are in it for power, desire to change society or whatever. The motivations for the power are different.

Yes my analysis is arbitrary, these are just my rough thoughts at the moment and I have not polished it up. Yes I seem to be using the same words differently in different places, I am trying to work out a system that would enable me to express my ideas without these problems.


Everyone: Thanks again for suggestions for reading material.

blueeyedboy: The media is important, while I am sure Marxists such as BreadBros will count it as being controlled by the capitalists (or the capitalist state) in the interests of the capitalists, I see it as a separate power type. It is not a "means of production", in that it does not create tangible products, yet it is quite important.

It is possible to have a "socialist" controlled TV station for example, that was quite big. It would obviously be opposed by the other TV stations and the government, but ...

Anyway, I don't really have time just now to continue this.

[BreadBros]

BreadBros: You seem to be arguing that political power (and military power) is subordinate to economic power. That is, the people who control the economy control politics as well (though possibly through an intermediary).

Nope. I think the reason you misunderstand me (and possibly Marxist theory in general) is that you seem to understand the relationships of power to be personal, while I'm arguing they are structural. In other words, I'm not saying that capitalists have direct control over either the media, the military or politicians. For all I know most capitalists have NEVER met a broadcaster or general or president in their entire life. What I'm saying is all these "forms" of power you enumerate are part of the functioning of a capitalist commodity economy. They all are formed from it and their functioning is instrinsically part of it. Capital-based production prevails in the modern world, and thus the capitalist class's interests are always served, as long as their is a capitalist commodity economy, that is what I'm saying.


However, it is perfectly possible that it is vice versa, that is the people who control the political power, control the economy.

I assume you mean what if some politicians seized the nation's capital. OK, well my question is: how does this change anything fundamental about power.

From a Marxist perspective, you are making a few errors in understanding. First of all, you are looking at superficial reality instead of material reality. What kind of power do politicians hold? Very little and increasingly less. The state functions as a mediator of class conflict in a way, it monopolizes power and gives out public services in order to placate the populace and smoothly administer/manage the functioning of society. So in your example, the politicians (who in the US usually are bourgeoisie anyway, although a few may be from the working class and function as effective employees of the bourgeoisie) take over capital. Not much changes. Capital still exists. Commodity production still exists. A state still exists. Nothing really changes except presumably the state is now under even tighter control of the bourgeoisie.


situation (in that the power is being controlled by the same people), I disagree. In one, the people in control (the ruling classes) are in it for possessions, money and power. In another, people are in it for power, desire to change society or whatever.

So the politicians aren't in it for wealth? Why do they control the economy? Why not redistribute things, and effect change that they want. It sure would make them very popular with the populace, and popularity often equals power, so I don't get it, whats making them keep the dough? Im being a bit facetious here, the answer as Marx pointed out, is: we're all in it for material wellbeing and wealth.


The media is important

Most definitely. Apathy maybe, if you want to read a great Marxist/Situationist take on the role of the mass media, consumerism and commodity fetishism (among other ideas) you should read Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord.


BreadBros will count it as being controlled by the capitalists (or the capitalist state) in the interests of the capitalists, I see it as a separate power type. It is not a "means of production"

:huh: Of course not. Im not sure if that was just badly worded, or if in fact you are attempting to refute Marxism without being acquainted with it. Of course the media isn't a means of production. Thats like saying "a shoe is not a way of producing goods", it makes no grammatical sense. The means of production is just the way society is structured in regards to producing goods and distributing them. Examples are capitalism, feudalism, slavery, hunting and gathering, etc, not a commodity or industry like media.


in that it does not create tangible products, yet it is quite important.

:huh: First of all, a commodity in Marxist terms has certain features, its produced to be sold in a market, it has a social use value which is the product of labor, and it has an exchange value (can be traded for other commodities) that roughly correlates to capital + the surplus value extracted from the laborer. It can be a good, or it can be a service (which acts as a commodity, although its being traded on a more basic level, exchanging raw labor power). Theres nothing stating it has to be tangible in any way, as the sale of services reveals. It is also possible to trade intangible goods that aren't necessarily deliverable services, ideas that may be put to use later for example, presuming they follow the definitions laid out above. So if an industry produced intangible goods, that isn't a contradiction with Marx at all.

Second of all, you're wrong. :lol: Sorry, but the media does produce tangible products. First of all, I think its obvious how newspapers, books, magazines, and other publications, CDs, etc are tangible. As for radio, TV, film, etc. how do you think that stuff gets on your receiver/screen? Magic? Filmmakers produce film reels of recorded images, TV studios produce tapes of recorded images, and radio networks produce recorded sounds on tape or digital. The thing is the use value of a news report would be somewhat gone if you had to go to every day to go buy it at some store. So they broadcast it directly to you, and you exchange one commodity (your attention to advertising), in return for another (watching the filmed sounds/images which are supposed to be entertaining). Theres so much competition because this market is so fluid (hey, I can just change my channel if I dont find something entertaining).

Anyways, I agree the media is very important. Mostly because as an unconscious product of capitalist production it represents and propagates capitalism's ideals and social norms. Its almost self-replicating for capitalism in that you pay for one commodity by agreeing to be told to go out and buy more.

[chimx]

Originally posted by BreadBros+November 16, 2006 01:32 am--> (BreadBros @ November 16, 2006 01:32 am)
[email protected] 16, 2006 01:23 am

Can you give some examples? I don't see any clear case of political power being differentiated from economic power.

"although the us government had strongly backed Rhee's rise to power, it did not always agree with his policies. us policy makers felt strongly that rhee should adopt an austerity budget in order to create an inflation-free environment for private investors. rhee disagreed, leading the u.s. government to periodically threaten to reduce its aid program." -landsburg

the result, foreign investment to the ROK from the Korean war up until the early 60s was next to non-existant and was instead kept afloat by direct american aid.

Thats a great examle of US economic imperialism, but I dont see how it differentiates between political and economic power somehow being distinct within capitalist society. It was a disagreement in policy, which happens all the time (for example, different factions of the bourgeoisie are at this moment fighting with each other over how to manage the war in Iraq and the direction of US foreign policy). Ultimately the political institution was merely a tool and part of the ruling class's power. Furthermore, the imperialist aspect muddles things up. If anything it could be construed as a conflict between the Korean bourgeoisie which sought to establish itself internationally and the US ruling class which was more focused on reaping it's own profits from it's aid to ROK. [/b]
rhee exercised vast amounts of political power (see cheju-do massacre) but he did so without the backing of capitalist investment. capitalists didn't begin to invest in the ROK until the 1960s, forcing the united states to keep the country afloat due to the US' military treaty obligations.

i was just using this as a quick example. if you want another one, look at jacobin period of the french revolution. their primary supporters were the sans culottes, not capitalists with economic sway.

marx never meant us to look at political power only in terms of economic power. marx was not an economic determinist. to reduce marx's writing to this is to adhere to a simplified vulgar marxism. political power is semi-autonomous from economics, but ultimately in the long term, subject to social class power. that is to say, political power has significant "wiggle-room".

[BreadBros]

rhee exercised vast amounts of political power (see cheju-do massacre) but he did so without the backing of capitalist investment. capitalists didn't begin to invest in the ROK until the 1960s, forcing the united states to keep the country afloat due to the US' military treaty obligations.

Well I don't know the complete background of this event, so I just wikipedia'd it, heres what I got:


A complex interplay of guerilla forces, youth groups, police, local and national army together with US presence lead to the massacre.

The South Korean right-wing provisional government, under U.S. guidance, conducted nationwide campaigns to root out communists and their sympathizers, which also included some moderates. This caused severe instability around the nation, and in Jeju where communist influence was stronger, many resorted to armed resistance against government action.

When Washington abandoned its promise to organize all-Korea elections, Cheju labor-party leaders staged massive rallies to demand reunification. The police killed six protesters in the rallies. Chejus then formed a "people's army". On April 3, 1948, rebels attacked police stations and government offices, killing an estimated 50 police. "A cycle of terror and counterterror soon developed. Police and rightists brutalized the islanders, who retaliated the best they could."[1]

That might be wrong, but it does say "under US guidance" and as you point out the US was in the process of keeping the ROK afloat.


i was just using this as a quick example. if you want another one, look at jacobin period of the french revolution. their primary supporters were the sans culottes, not capitalists with economic sway.

Maybe in terms of raw numbers and the participants of certain events, but in terms of the political dethronement of Louis, the establishment of parliamentary bodies (overwhelmingly dominated by the bourgeoisie) and the supply of resources that funded the revolution, it was overwhelmingly a product of the bourgeois class. Of course the sans-culottes may have taken over in certain periods, revolutions tend to be tumultuos and when class-relations break down that can happen, in the end the bourgeoisie crushed or co-opted them however. If you're interested in formulating new theories on power then a better question regarding the French revolution is: what caused it? From a Marxist/materialist POV its quite simple: the nascent bourgeois class was merely appropriated the political sphere of what was already economic reality: the emerging domination of capitalist production over feudalist production. If political and economic power are seperate functions, then why do political changes always correlate with economic changes?


marx never meant us to look at political power only in terms of economic power. marx was not an economic determinist. to reduce marx's writing to this is to adhere to a simplified vulgar marxism.

Obviously I disagree to a certain extent. It would be helpful if you could explain your claims more in-depth however, instead of just asserting them.


political power is semi-autonomous from economics, but ultimately in the long term, subject to social class power. that is to say, political power has significant "wiggle-room".

I disagree that political power is ever divorced from economic power. Political leaders may act against the interests of the economic system, we are talking about human beings here afterall, but that doesn't change the source or structure of their power and tends to be rather short-lived.