geopolitics, state, imperialism....

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What exactly is the relationship between politics and capital?

IS the state a vehicle by which the bourgeoisie rule (directly), implying that politics is to an extent subservient to capital.

Or is poltics (and everyday state function, but also the use of state power) largely independent of capital?

Also, when we talk about imperialism, be normally understand it primarily, in states in competition and sometimes conflict with each other.

Does the rise of international politics and judicial systems (like the UN) point out problems for how we understand imperialism in 2008?

[Red_or_Dead]

What exactly is the relationship between politics and capital?


One thing is that politicians are many times affiliated with capital owners. We currently have an example where the president of one of the biggest Slovenian companies is the brother of a president of one of the parties in the government. Also, I saw a documentary (Im guessing it was Michael Moores) where they say that the Bush familiy is involved with the Saudis, and on their payroll. Two good examples, imo. Bourgeoisie seeks contact with politics, to influence it, and since the bourgeoisie is the only class wealthy enough to do it, they are of course sucsesfull.


IS the state a vehicle by which the bourgeoisie rule (directly), implying that politics is to an extent subservient to capital.


I would say that that differs from country to country, but in the western "democracies" at least, I think its not that the bourgeoisie directly controls it, more indirectly, standing in the backround, making decisions, that we cant see.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yes, western democracies are confusing to understand.

On the one hand, i can see the business community organisations, which have a direct influence over the government, but, they don't determine policy.

Also, how can a national bourgeoisie have control over bi-national and multinational talks, negotiations and treaties?

[erupt]

Also, I saw a documentary (Im guessing it was Michael Moores) where they say that the Bush familiy is involved with the Saudis, and on their payroll.
Yes, Moore proves that in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Regardless of one likes the social democrat, Moore, or not, I believe that movie is very interesting and it truly shows this whole topic in an example that a few countries are still feeling the reverberating effects of.

[Red_or_Dead]

Yes, Moore proves that in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Regardless of one likes the social democrat, Moore, or not, I believe that movie is very interesting and it truly shows this whole topic in an example that a few countries are still feeling the reverberating effects of.

IDK, I watched two of his movies, read a lot about him, and I still cant figure out his political orientation. Hes definatly someone that would have been restricted to the OI, if he would join here. But in any case, he points out a lot of good information.


lso, how can a national bourgeoisie have control over bi-national and multinational talks, negotiations and treaties?

I would say that the same as they can influence the policies of countries. It could be that a country that supports an independant Kosovo (for example) has companies that would profit from it. Idk how, but it seems like plausible to me. Also, certain US companies had a big profit in the Iraq war, but they didnt start it, the US government did, the companies moved in later to rebuild, rearm, re-everything in Iraq. There had to be a conection. Maybe the war wasnt the idea of the American bourgeoisie, but they clearly benefited from it. Thats an example of international influence of the bourgeoisie.

Also, I wouldnt exacly say that they control policies, they influence it, be it through personal acquantainces, paying for election campaigns, ect.

[erupt]

Also, certain US companies had a big profit in the Iraq war, but they didnt start it, the US government did, the companies moved in later to rebuild, rearm, re-everything in Iraq. There had to be a conection. Maybe the war wasnt the idea of the American bourgeoisie, but they clearly benefited from it. Thats an example of international influence of the bourgeoisie.

Also, I wouldnt exacly say that they control policies, they influence it, be it through personal acquantainces, paying for election campaigns, ect.
Bush and Cheney and many friends of theres have very large portions of stock invested in many companies that have benefited from the war.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were invested in the American flag company that gives the flags to the Military that puts them on the coffins. I wouldn't be surprised if they invested in the coffin company, either.

[blackstone]

Excellent questions, these simple probes will begin your journey into understanding Who Rules America and the UK, and by which means they do so.

The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses, along with the the managers and experts they hire, rule America and the UK.



The upper class and the closely related corporate community do not stand alone at the top of the power structure. They are supplemented by a wide range of nonprofit organizations that play an important role in framing debates over public policy and in shaping public opinion. These organizations are often called "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan" because they are not identified with politics or with either of the two major political parties. But they are the real "political party" of the upper class in terms of insuring the stability of the society and the compliance of government.
Upper-class and corporate dominance of the major nonprofit organizations can be seen in their founding by wealthy members of the upper class and in their reliance on large corporations for their funding. However, dominance is once again most readily demonstrated through studies of boards of directors, which have ultimate control of the organizations, including the ability to hire and fire top executives. These studies show that (1) members of the upper class are greatly over-represented on the boards of these organizations, and (2) that nonprofit organizations share a large number of directors in common with the corporate community, particularly directors who are part of the "inner circle." In effect, most large nonprofit organizations are part of the corporate community.
All the organizations in the nonprofit sector have a hand in creating the framework of the society in one way or another, and hence in helping to shape the political climate. The cultural and civic organizations set the standard for what is beautiful, important, and "classy." The elite universities play a big part in determining what is important to teach, learn, and research, and they train most of the professionals and experts in the country. However, it is the foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion organizations that have the most direct and important influences. Their ideas, criticisms, and policy suggestions go out to the general public through a wide array of avenues, including pamphlets, books, local discussion groups, mass media, and not least, the public relations departments of major corporations. Their materials also reach government through a variety of means that will be outlined shortly.
It is worthwhile to look a little more closely at the foundations, think tanks, and policy-discussion organizations to show how they function as a "policy-planning network."
Tax-free foundations receive their money from wealthy families and corporations. Their primary purpose is to provide money for education, research, and policy discussion. They thus have the power to encourage those ideas and researchers they find compatible with their values and goals, and to withhold funds from others. Support by major foundations often has had a significant impact on the direction of research in agriculture, social science, and the health sciences. However, foundations also create policy projects on their own. The Ford Foundation (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/ford_foundation.html), for example, helped to create a complex network of advocacy groups and funding sources for Community Development Corporations (CDCs) that provide housing and social services in the inner city.
The role of the think tanks is to suggest new policies to deal with the problems facing the economy and government. Using money from wealthy donors, corporations, and foundations, think tanks hire the experts produced by the graduate departments of the elite universities. The ideas and proposals developed by the experts are disseminated through pamphlets, books, articles in major magazines and newspapers, and, most importantly, through the participation of the experts themselves in the various forums provided by the policy-discussion organizations.
The policy-discussion organizations are the hub of the policy-planning network. They bring together wealthy individuals, corporate executives, experts, and government officials for lectures, forums, meetings, and group discussions of issues that range from the local to the international, and from the economic to the political to the cultural. New ideas are tried out in weekly or monthly discussion groups, and differences of opinion are aired and compromised. These structured discussion groups usually begin with a presentation by the invited experts, followed by questions and discussion involving all participants. Such discussion groups may range in size from ten to 50, with the usual group having fifteen to 25 members.
The many discussion groups that take place within the several policy-discussion organizations have several functions that do not readily meet the eye. They are often overlooked by theorists -- pluralists and state-autonomy theorists, primarily -- who do not believe that the upper class and corporate community have the ability to develop overall policy sophistication and thereby be in a position to influence the government. First, these organizations help to familiarize busy corporate leaders with policy options outside the purview of their day-to-day business concerns. This gives these executives the ability to influence public opinion through the mass media and other outlets, to argue with and influence experts, and to accept appointments for government service. Second, the policy-discussion organizations give members of the upper class and corporate community the opportunity to see which of their colleagues seem to be the best natural leaders through watching them in the give and take of the discussion groups. They can see which of their counterparts understand the issues quickly, offer their own ideas, facilitate discussions, and relate well to experts. The organizations thus serve as sorting and screening mechanisms for the emergence of new leadership for the corporate rich in general.
Third, these organizations legitimate their participants to the media and interested public as knowledgeable leaders who deserve to be tapped for public service because they have used their free time to acquaint themselves with the issues in nonpartisan forums. The organizations thereby help make wealthy individuals and corporate executives into "national leaders" and "statesmen." Finally, these organizations provide a forum wherein members of the upper class and corporate community can come to know policy experts. This gives them a pool of people from which they can draw advisors if they are asked to serve in government. It also gives them a basis for recommending experts to politicians for government service.
The organizations also serve obvious functions for the experts. First, presenting their ideas and policies to these organizations gives them an opportunity to have influence. Second, it gives them a chance to advance their own careers if they can impress the upper-class and corporate participants.
The policy-planning network is not totally homogeneous. Reflecting differences within the corporate community, there are moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative wings within it. Moderate conservatives favor foreign aid, low tariffs, and increased economic expansion overseas, whereas the ultra-conservatives tend to see foreign aid as a giveaway. Moderate conservatives tend to accept the idea that governmental taxation and spending policies can be used to stimulate and stabilize the economy, but ultra-conservatives insist that taxes should be cut to the very minimum and that government spending is the next thing to evil. Moderate conservatives accept some welfare-state measures, or at least they support such measures in the face of serious social disruption. Ultra-conservatives have consistently opposed any welfare spending, claiming that it destroys moral fiber and saps individual initiative, so they prefer to use arrest and detention when faced with social unrest.
The reasons for these differences are not well understood. There is a tendency for the moderate-conservative organizations to be directed by executives from the very largest and most internationally oriented of corporations, but there are numerous exceptions to that generalization. Moreover, there are corporations that support policy organizations within both camps. However, for all their differences, leaders within the two clusters of policy organizations have a tendency to search for compromise due to their common membership in the upper-class and corporate community. When compromise is not possible, the final resolution of policy conflicts often takes place in legislative struggles in Congress.
The existence of the policy-planning network provides evidence for another form of power possessed by the wealthy few: expertise on social and political issues. It is an important complement to the naked economic power possessed by the corporations.http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/national.html



I suggest his book, Who Rules America as well as Michael Umeem's Inner Circle for an indepth look at the network of power(upper class, corporate community, policy formation networks) and how they influence government. A brief paper by G William Domhoff( author of Who Rules America) detailing how the power elite dominates government can be found here.

http://www.dushkin.com/text-data/articles/22266/body.pdf


cheers

[blackstone]

I just wrote an essay which is heavily influenced by the works of G. William Domhoff and Michael Useem.

You can find it here.
http://power-2-people.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-power-elite-dominates-government_24.html

Though, obviously not as in depth as there books or websites, it does give a brief overview of the structure of the ruling class and how it rules.

Domhoff states, "Through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government" the upper class are able to rule America and influence decisions affecting the bottom 80% of the population. This power stems from their great concentration of wealth which is derived from ownership and control of large income proudcing corporations. As Domhoff states allowing corporate leaders to "invest money where and when they choose; expand, close, or move their factories and offices at a moment's notice; and hire, promote, and fire employees as they see fit. These powers give them a direct influence over the great majority of Americans, who are dependent upon wages and salaries for their incomes. They also give the corporate rich indirect influence over elected and appointed officials, for the growth and stability of a city, state, or the country as a whole can be jeopardized by a lack of business confidence in government."

And I largely agree.