I wrote: > But in fact the ruling elite that is supposely steering the historical > process represents the shifting coalition of different interest groups > (some of which hate each other[*]) working within a well-entrenched > social system (capitalism, patriarchy, white ethnic privilege) that > exists outside of the elite's control.
Peter Hollings wrote: > Good description, but I believe key elements of the social (economic & > political) system are within the elite's control, even if there is no > formal organization for central coordination and control. Consider the > Bush tax policies, or the widening gap over the last several decades of > income levels between rich and poor. Or, looking at the use of > information as an instrument of social control, I'd recommend the/// I totally agree. It's hard to make a point in a small number of words. Given another chance, I'll add the distinction between structural factors (capitalism, patriarchy, white privilege) and less structural factors (the tax system, the existing distribution of income, etc.) The Bushbabies are not only products of capitalism, patriarchy, and white privilege, but lack the ability to fundamentally change them. (They could _destroy_ the system, but that seems unlikely in the near future.) On the other hand, they can change the less structural factors and are doing so, raising the rate of exploitation, the degree of media obscurantism, etc. They can engage in actions that encourage quantitative change, but qualitative change would involve some sort of revolution. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
