It's not just money or "wealth." Meet the *real* enemy.

[Cerridwen]

Hallelujah! I finally found what I was looking for.

The debate back and forth about what is wealth, how much is rich, and so on, is one I've stayed out of because I've not been able to find the words (shocker, no?!) to explain what I understand about what is happening on this planet, in our world.

Fortunately, I found an article (yeah!) in which much of what I wanted to say is already said. It's in a book review at Salon, by Laura Miller, about a book entitled "Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making" written by an almost-"insider," David Rothkopf. Some of the names you'll recognize, others you won't. As I've not yet read the book, I'll say only that the review fits with *my* world view.

Please let me know if you've read the book and what you think of its validity and if this review is representative of the book. Thanks.

A few snippets (with emphasis added) from the review

"Davos man" is an epithet coined by the conservative scholar Samuel Huntington to describe the very specific type that attends the conference. These are people who, as Huntington wrote, "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations."

<snip>

Rothkopf's credible, if not especially original argument in "Superclass" is that over the past several decades a "global elite" {just over 6000 members) has emerged whose connections to each other have become more significant than their ties to their home nations and governments. They schmooze regularly at conferences like Davos, go to the same schools, serve together on corporate and nonprofit boards, and above all do business with each other constantly -- to the point that they have become a kind of culture in themselves, a "class without a country," as Rothkopf puts it. Furthermore, these people are "the new leadership class for our era."

<snip>

Money alone doesn't cut the mustard. A fabulously wealthy widow living out the end of a quiet life isn't in the superclass; you must not only possess power, but also freely exercise it. Stephen Schwarzman, CEO of the Blackstone Group, is the paradigm: In addition to running a huge private equity firm, he sits on the boards of a half-dozen cultural foundations and belongs to a laundry list of forums and councils, including the WEF.

<snip>

Rothkopf's outlook on these players is roughly Clintonian. He believes in capitalism as an engine for prosperity, but he's leery of the free-market gospel that dictates that "market reforms" ought to be imposed on faltering economies whatever the social and political costs. "It is true," he writes, "that governments have been unable to do much of what they should do to improve the welfare of their people, and in a vast number of cases markets have done much more." But the "free-market" moniker is misleading, since such a thing doesn't really exist. All markets are tweaked by governments to some extent, and what the preachers of the free-market religion never acknowledge is that their own favorite case studies are surreptitiously finagled to benefit the already rich.

It's not solely how much money you have or influence you have - you, if you are posting on DU, probably have not enough of either - it's how they use those resources and for what purposes.

It's not about the amount of money, their tax bracket, their nationality or their ideology; it is, simply put, about their bottom line. It's "just business."



edit title to add hyperbole.

[Cerridwen]

1. Oh, and be sure to read page 2. That oughta make you grind your

teeth a bit.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. It sounds like Rothkopf knows the problem is the rich, but he feels compelled to excuse himself...

....every time he says a truth.

They're scumbuckets.... but we shouldn't be mean to the oligarchists, they're nice.. that kind of thing.

[Cerridwen]

3. Yeah, he seems to be a wannabe "scumbucket."

A true gatekeeper.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. LOL! I know!

He needs to make up his mind which side he's on, or he'll end up on the shrink's couch.

:eyes: :eyes:

[Cerridwen]

5. I laughed out loud at your post.

Scared the dogs. LOL

Too true. It must suck to envy people you hate so much.

[glinda]

6. Of course the idea was that a handful of wealthy run the world but there is just one

itty bitty problem with it and that there a gazillions more of us than them.

[Cerridwen]

7. Now if only we could figure that out rather than bashing the crap

out of our neighbors for their mcmansions and hummers, we might have a chance based on pure numbers.

As it is, this "divide and conquer" strategy is working well for them.

[glinda]

11. Hmmmm...what did we learn recently....

oh yeah! That people make make change happen. You are right. We need to mobilize and do something. I don't know what though.

[Cerridwen]

13. If what was discussed in the article is true,

what change did *we* make? Are there about 6000 people who make and influence decisions still in power? Have they suddenly decided to become democratic in their way of thinking? Are they suddenly concerned with our well-being over their bottom line?

Perhaps we just helped select a new member or members for their consideration as new members of the club.

[glinda]

22. possibly

I think that if things get bad enough, email notices should go out and millions or thousands of people should start showing up at places like the homes of those who are ripping everyone off. It may come to that actually.

[Cerridwen]

24. We'd have to find a complete list of names and addresses.

We'd also have to be a different kind of people than we appear to be.

I'd be surprised if much happened.

[tavalon]

60. Which is why they play divide and conquer so well -it's their only defense

Once, we stop gullibly playing along, then, I think we will have our Marie Antoinette moment. Let them eat cake, indeed!

[Odin2005]

8. These bastards are what British historian A. J. Toynbee called a "Dominant Minority"

According to Toynbee if what was previously a "creative minority" (for the West this was the merchant class of the Early Modern Period) loses it's creative edge and tries to hold by force a position it has ceased to merit the civilization's social fabric rips into three classes, a "Dominant Minority" (the Multinational Corporatists), an "Internal Proletariat" (all other Westerners), and an "External Proletariat" (people from other societies pissed off by the actions of our civilization's Dominant Minority); the civilization starts to disintegrate. The Dominant Minority's militarism eventually leads to the formation of a "Universal State" (such as the Roman Empire) that encompasses the entire disintegrating civilization. The Internal Proletariat eventually creates a new evangelical and universalist religion, and the External Proletariat becomes barbarian war bands (or in our modern world, terrorist groups).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_of_History

"First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold by force—against all right and reason—a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence when it executes its acts of secession. Yet the whole movement ends in positive acts of creation—and this on the part of all the actors in the tragedy of disintegration. The Dominant Minority creates a universal state, the Internal Proletariat a universal church, and the External Proletariat a bevy of barbarian war-bands."

--A. J. Toynbee

[Cerridwen]

9. It appears we're right on target:

"militarism" - check

"new evangelical and universalist religion" - seems to be in the works

"war bands" - check

What happens next? The Fall of the Western Empire? Apocalypse (unveiling)?

I'm not sure I like living in "interesting times."

[Odin2005]

10. More lile the Fall of the Roman Republic. We are about where Graeco-Roman Civilization was in 150BC.

At that time people were reacting violently against the Roman Elite's own form of Globalization, which consisted of driving debt-ridden family farmers off their land and putting slave-worked plantations, the Latifundia, in their place. A series of 3 civil wars ensued that brought down the Republic. The only way to save Western Civilization is to do what the reformers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were murdered for trying to do in Rome (they tried to do a land reform), eliminate the power of the elites and stop then destroying the livelihoods of average people.

[Cerridwen]

12. "The only way to save Western Civilization..." which begs the question;

is "Western Civilization" worth saving?

It would appear we've "been here before." What's to stop us from cycling through it all over again?

[Odin2005]

14. Because if we can reverse the disintergration we can prevent a lot of future pain.

The disintegration of a civilization is not a pretty thing, and there is still time to be able to reverse the disintegration, which started just over 200 years ago when the elites reacted so viciously to the French Revolution. Wait another century and it will be too late, and we will be doomed to suffer under a global corporate super-state.

[leftstreet]

15. South America

The real changes in 'civilization' are happening right now. Just not in the western capitalist countries, and certainly not on our teevees.

The global corporate super-state you fear is on its way out.

[Cerridwen]

17. Chavez, speaking of one specific example, was mentioned in the

article. He is not well liked by the superelites.

[Cerridwen]

16. You're thinking "Blade Runner" and I'm wondering if "Star Trek" is

a possibility. :D

I wasn't thinking so much as "disintegration" as re-creating. Perhaps that would be an alternative as well. I doubt it. But, I'd like to think it's possible. Yeah, I have a tendency toward optimism in my cynicism. LOL

[Odin2005]

20. I'm really not thinking blade-runner. More like the corporate world order that forms in...

sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy; extremely high technology contrasting with sickening poverty and oppression. Or the dystopian corporatist settings in a lot of cyber-punk sci-fi. The Star-Trek future requires the elimination of the Dominant Minority.

[Cerridwen]

21. Hmm, must be why I like the "Star Trek" version.

:evilgrin:

I'm not sure I'm familiar with the Mars trilogy, though it does sound familiar. I may have to check it out. Cyber-punk I know I don't know anything about.

So many books, so little time. :D

[Odin2005]

28. The Mars trilogy are wonderful books!

You would like them!

[Cerridwen]

29. It is on my reading list to check out this week.

Thank you! I've been re-reading from my collection so something "new" would be welcome.

:hi:

[alterfurz]

30. when asked what he thought of Western civilization, Gandhi responded...

"I think it would be a good idea."

[Cerridwen]

32. :D

:D

I remember reading that. Perhaps that exchange is what planted the seed for my question.

[Uncle Joe]

55. In general, throughout humankind's history,

each empire has grown larger in geographical size and influence, than it's predecessors.

I believe one empire or world government will eventually rule the entire planet but it's getting to the point that military conquest will be eliminated as a means to get there.

In regards to western civilization, I don't see it as any worse or better than previous civilizations, humanity being what it is.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

25. Interesting. Thanks! nt.

[Turbineguy]

18. I always thought that the great thing about having money

was the good you could do with it.

Of course, you'd have to know what "good" was.

[Cerridwen]

19. Yeah. It would appear "good" is relative.

I like your sig line, btw. It made me laugh.

[Cerridwen]

23. Morning kick. Just 'cuz. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

26. k+r

[Cerridwen]

27. Thank you, Blue_Tires.

[Orsino]

31. Feudalism.

Hereditary wealth unchecked by law.

[Cerridwen]

33. On a global scale.

Though I would perhaps add, rather than "unchecked by law" it is perpetrated and enforced by the law created by the owners of said wealth.

[Orsino]

34. Uh-huh. "Law" neutered to the point...

...where it becomes equal to their whim of the moment.

[blindpig]

35. Don't beat around the bush.

It's capitalism, of which the super rich are a result, they're just playing the game, fulfilling their role. Get rid of them and a new set will replace them if the structure of capitalism is allowed to remain.

[Greyhound]

36. Capitalism is simply the next step in their evolution of the world.

IOW, "capitalism" is their creation, they are not the result of capitalism. The parasite class will persist as long as we cleave to this notion of "capitalism", or any system with the domination of others as it's core.

[bvar22]

39. Capitalism is a form of evolution.

The most ruthless, the most cold-blooded, the most extreme Sociopaths will eventually become the Top Predators.

[Cerridwen]

48. The super rich may be based on capitalism, but

there have always been the super powerful whose decisions and actions effected "the masses." In times past, the most powerful swordsman or fighter led the tribe or clan, land was wealth (think of the word, "land lord"), as was "title" and other tangible and non-tangible indications of influence and power. Currency is just the latest badge of membership.

We do ourselves much harm if we focus solely on who has wealth without also identifying who has influence and power to wield "the sword," wealth and influence.

[blindpig]

49. All the same.

Wealth = power. We live in the time of Capital, thus older models may be discarded. It's not just about high profile shitheads like the Bushes, they are an exclamation mark. If you're making your money on other people's labor then you are the enemy.

[Cerridwen]

50. The older models haven't been discarded, though.

That's my point. They have been enhanced, modernized, refined, made more effective.

Getting rid of capitalism, if possible, is only a start. If we don't get the underpinnings and the people, we'll just get the same crap in a different flavor.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Exactly- there is *always* a superclass, and it's not always about money

The real revolution in all this excercise in PWP (power, wealth, and prestige) was the innovation of
letting some up-and-comers into the club, not just those from "good" families. The Rockefellers (shop
clerk), Vanderbilts (ferryboat captain), and Bill Clinton all came from working-class origins.

It's a kick-ass way to keep violent revolt down- hold out the hope of "joining the club" if you're
ambitious enough.

The old Soviet Union's superclass was the nomenklatura- the Communist Party bigwigs, the heads of
factories and design bureaus and influential academics. The armed forces were a not-entirely-separate
sphere of influence.

The metric of whether you were one of the elite was the amount of blat (influence, pull, juice)
you had. If you had it, you could get the nice toys, a nice apartment, a dacha, travel abroad,
get your kids into good schools, and not have to worry so much about those pesky laws for the proles.

Sorta like capitalism, no?

[Cerridwen]

61. Precisely.

It's a kick-ass way to keep violent revolt down- hold out the hope of "joining the club" if you're ambitious enough.

"Rags to riches," "How to think like a millionare," "Horatio Alger," - all stories to remind us if we just work hard enough, long enough, smart enough, we'll someday join the club. With the added benefit that we can be reminded that we're not part of the club because, obviously, we didn't do those things so we must be lazy, stupid, or we gave up too soon - or, perhaps we just weren't blessed with "God's Good Grace."

[Cardiff]

37. The Amazon review: for those who don't want the ads on Salon

http://www.amazon.com/Superclass-Global-Power-Elite-Making/dp/0374272107/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233593778&sr=8-2

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Books on world elites tend to focus on the superwealthy, but political scholar Rothkopf (Running the World) has written a serious and eminently readable evaluation of the superpowerful. Until recent decades, great-power governments provided most of the superclass, accompanied by a few heads of international movements (i.e., the pope) and entrepreneurs (Rothschilds, Rockefellers). Today, economic clout—fueled by the explosive expansion of international trade, travel and communication—rules. The nation state's power has diminished, according to Rothkopf, shrinking politicians to minority power broker status. Leaders in international business, finance and the defense industry not only dominate the superclass, they move freely into high positions in their nations' governments and back to private life largely beyond the notice of elected legislatures (including the U.S. Congress), which remain abysmally ignorant of affairs beyond their borders. The superelites' disproportionate influence over national policy is often constructive, but always self-interested. Across the world, the author contends, few object to corruption and oppressive governments provided they can do business in these countries. Neither hand-wringing nor worshipful, this book delivers an unsettling account of what the immense and growing power of this superclass bodes for the future. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post

Reviewed by Anne-Marie Slaughter

Go to www.theyrule.net. A white page appears with a deliberately shadowy image of a boardroom table and chairs. Sentences materialize: "They sit on the boards of the largest companies in America." "Many sit on government committees." "They make decisions that affect our lives." Finally, "They rule." The site allows visitors to trace the connections between individuals who serve on the boards of top corporations, universities, think thanks, foundations and other elite institutions. Created by the presumably pseudonymous Josh On, "They Rule" can be dismissed as classic conspiracy theory. Or it can be viewed, along with David Rothkopf's Superclass, as a map of how the world really works.

In Superclass, Rothkopf, a former managing director of Kissinger Associates and an international trade official in the Clinton Administration, has identified roughly 6,000 individuals who have "the ability to regularly influence the lives of millions of people in multiple countries worldwide." They are the "superclass" of the 21st century, spreading across borders in an ever thickening web, with a growing allegiance, Rothkopf argues, to each other rather than to any particular nation.

Rothkopf's archetypal member of the superclass is Blackstone Group executive Stephen Schwarzman, who is not only fabulously wealthy, but also chairman of the Kennedy Center, a board member of the New York Public Library, the New York City Ballet, the Film Society of Lincoln Center and the New York City Partnership. These boards, along with the over 100 businesses Blackstone has invested in, the other business councils and advisory boards he sits on, and his Yale and Harvard education, mean that Schwarzman is only one or two affiliations away from any center of power in the world. Rothkopf actually traces the "daisy chain" of Schwarzman's connections through his board memberships -- linking him to Ratan Tata, one of India's richest men, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo and many others. It is these links that create access that translates to influence and determines how the levers of power are pulled.

Fame alone doesn't get you into the global power elite: Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are out while Angelina Jolie and Bono are in. High office is generally enough for politicians and even their spouses, but membership in the superclass can be fleeting -- Mikhail Gorbachev and Cherie Blair are now out, while Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton are still in. Rothkopf harps on the Pareto principle of distribution, or the "80/20 rule," whereby 20 percent of the causes of anything are responsible for 80 percent of the consequences. That means 20 percent of the money-makers make 80 percent of the money and 20 percent of the politicians make 80 percent of the important decisions. That 20 percent belongs to the superclass.

On closer inspection, however, Rothkopf has no actual methodology for determining who is in and who is out. Each chapter identifies individuals who are said to count in a field, conclusions backed up by trendspotting and anecdotes about Rothkopf's encounters at Davos and New York dinner parties that make the reader feel vaguely voyeuristic. When Rothkopf ventures away from his core expertise in politics and finance, and into such subjects as asymmetrical warfare, mega-churches and freemasonry, the pastiche-like quality of his research becomes evident.

Still, Superclass is often thought-provoking. For one thing, it is as much about who is not part of the superclass as who is. As I read Rothkopf's chronicles of elite gatherings -- Davos, Bilderberg, the Bohemian Grove (all male), Fathers and Sons (all male) -- I was repeatedly struck by the near absence of women. Fortune magazine's annual Most Powerful Women Summit, the only elite gathering I know of that is restricted to women, didn't even rate a mention. And indeed, when Rothkopf summarizes "how to become a member of the superclass," his first rule is "be born a man." Only 6 percent of the superclass is female.

Superclass is written in part as a consciousness-raising exercise for members of the superclass themselves. Rothkopf worries that "the world they are making" is deeply unequal and ultimately unstable. He hopes that the current global elite will use their power to do more than egg each other on to high-profile philanthropy. Elites in radically unequal countries such as Chile, for instance, might decide to open their cozy circles of power to allow the emergence of a genuine middle class. New York bankers might realize that they can no longer peddle loans to developing countries in good times but then pressure the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund to bail out those same governments when they suddenly default on their debts (ensuring, of course, that the bankers get paid). The agribusinesses that reap billions from domestic subsidies in developed countries might consider the longer-term value of trade rather than aid for countries at the bottom of the global food chain.

Perhaps. But it's likely to take more than exhortation. In the words of former Navy Secretary John Lehman, "Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." Why would the superclass want to give it up?

[Cerridwen]

40. Cool, Cardiff. Thanks.

I didn't realize you had to wade through ads at Salon. :(

edit to spell Cardiff's name correctly.

[Greyhound]

38. K&R, thank you very much for posting this. n/t

[Raksha]

41. In other words, a prerequisite for membership in the superclass is being essentially amoral.

Re It's not solely how much money you have or influence you have - you, if you are posting on DU, probably have not enough of either - it's how they use those resources and for what purposes.

It's not about the amount of money, their tax bracket, their nationality or their ideology; it is, simply put, about their bottom line. It's "just business."

That's pretty much what I figured when I started reading your post.

[Greyhound]

42. Absolutely, no exceptions. Kick. n/t

[Cerridwen]

45. Yes, it would appear so.

At least, whatever passes for morals or ethics for them wouldn't be anything you or I might recognize as such.

[DFW]

43. Howard Dean was at Davos

He's not particularly wealthy, and he most certainly is not about "just business,"
and the last thing on his mind is to "facilitate the elite's global operations."

I also met another guy from Holland who was at Davos. His main thing is trying to get
large amounts of food at the lowest price available for distribution to the third world.

I'd be very wary indeed of blanket condemnations.

[Cerridwen]

46. This isn't just about those who attended Davos.

There are others, though not listed in the article, who are listed or discussed in the book. It's also, according to the article, a club in which membership can change. A one or two time trip to Davos isn't an indication of "membership."

I'd like to find the core of the 6000+ who rarely if ever lose "membership." I'd almost bet, they're names we no longer reconize or that we thought were lost to history.

[Leftist Agitator]

44. Then why don't the citizens of the world round them up and execute them?

That would seem to be the sensible thing to do.

[Cerridwen]

47. Because we, unlike them, have ethics and morals...

at least it would appear that way.

We have also been played against each other for quite some time; we'll have to get past our created divisions.

The "citizens of the world" can't seem to even come together to demand workers' rights and safe work environments. We've a long way to go.

[JuniperLea]

51. Let's add another layer to that...

Dark Pools of Liquidity... billions of dollars at the command of unknowns, used to move the market.

http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/07/10/dark-pools/

snip

Most investors have never even heard the term - and are truly shocked to discover these "off-the-books" trading networks actually exist.

But to Wall Street insiders looking to anonymously move billions of dollars in stocks, bonds, and other investment instruments, dark pools are de rigueur - especially when you’re an institutional trader who doesn’t want to reveal your intentions or your actions to the "rest" of the market, until after the fact when the orders are "printed."

And that makes these dark pools of capital highly problematic when it comes transparency: There is literally none in most pools and only limited visibility in others.

Dark Pools: From Trading Haven to Heavyweight
Dark Pools are electronic "crossing networks" that offer institutional investors many of the same benefits associated with making trades on the stock exchanges’ public limit order books - without tipping their hands to others, meaning publicly quoted prices aren’t affected. This is the capital markets’ version of a godsend - especially for traders who desire to move large blocks of shares without the public investors ever knowing.


Google "dark pools of liquidity" and prepare a soft spot for your jaw to land when it drops!

[Cerridwen]

53. Peachy. Just peachy.

As has long been the case, the old boys really do like to operate behind closed doors, on the other side of the "velvet rope" - beyond which the un-anointed daily working stiff may never pass. And Dark-Pool operators are only getting more private as computerized trading becomes more sophisticated and large-scale-order placement evolves into a science all to itself.

Dark Pool ownership involves almost the entire institutional-trading sector, consisting of independents, broker/dealer-owned pools, consortiums and even - as hard as this is to imagine, given the public’s trust - the stock exchanges themselves (See accompanying chart).

And business is booming.

I don't have a thing I can say that will add to this.

[JuniperLea]

56. Scary, huh?

And how many people have ever even heard of this? It was news to me! Doesn't it make you feel like all this is futile? That we're being manipulated by lurking shadows, and there's nothing we can do? This is BILLIONS of dollars!

I'd like to get some great DU minds working on this.

[Cerridwen]

57. Interestingly enough, scared wasn't my first response.

Sad was my first reaction.

If this information can be trusted, it is even more imperitive that we stop fighting amongst ourselves and begin focusing on and identifying "them."

Futile? Not so much. It's imperitive we act. Determined to...I have many ideas but my first impulse is to educate, disseminate. Maybe some of those great DU minds you mentioned?

I grew up reading Sci-Fi. I watched it on TV when it finally hit there (yeah, giving my age away :D ). We won the "Shadow Wars" on TV. Maybe we can do so in reality. I had a geek moment. LOL

Hell, if they can use 1984 and Brave New World as their playbooks, why can't we use Star Trek and Babylon 5? My geek moment came with a dose of silly.

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

58. The news of this hit my desk by way of one of the founders of our firm

And he gave credit for the information to a very reliable source. He calls this source periodically and asks "what are you looking into these days, and what scares you most?" Dark pools was the answer.

There's a lot of stuff out there... including a Wiki... and lots of articles to be found via Google.

My geek moment was string theory... I watched the PBS special last year, and I just started a book on the same topic... which may sink into the black hole of my head! LOL!

[Cerridwen]

62. My SO and I discussed your post. It had reminded me of something

I had read before but I didn't remember the phrase "dark pools." Apparently, this type of hidden trading has gone on since the advent of Wall Street. My SO thinks the hedge funds began as such. He also reminded me that as soon as people see the "shadows," they've already moved into another hidden area creating other "dark pools."

Another tool for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

String theory is fun to try to wrap my brain around. I've read about it here and there. I don't know if my brain became a black hole but it sure got tied in knots. :D

[killbotfactory]

52. A hundred years ago they were known as the "bourgeoisie"

but that's a silly foreign word used by commies and unfit for American consumption.

[Cerridwen]

54. There was a time in recent US history in which they were referred to

as the "Leisure Class."

Interestingly, that term fell out of use as we all "learned" how hard those wealthy folk worked for their money. Ain't PR grand?! /sarcasm

[riderinthestorm]

63. Bookmarking to read later. Thanks for the OP. nt

[Cerridwen]

64. Thank you and you're welcome.

:D