Who Rules America-Domhoff

[CapitalistSwine]

So I had to read this sections of Domhoff's book, Who Rules America for a Polisci/Soc 300 level class I had to take to fulfill a requirement in one of my majors. I was curious if anyone has heard or read of this guy before and what your view of him is. In this book what he mostly did was track specific wealthy/well-connected people over time and tried to figure out how these wealth networks work. It was actually fairly interesting, putting aside some of the false premises surrounding his investigation, with a large component being the schools these rich/wealthy kids go to. You can find information on the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Rules-America-Politics-Social-Change/dp/0072876255

You can preview a fair amount of the book there through Amazon's look inside feature.

"Drawing from a power elite perspective and the latest empirical data, Domhoff’s classic text is an invaluable tool for teaching students about how power operates in U.S. society. Domhoff argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant figures in the U.S. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington and their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments. By providing empirical evidence for his argument, Domhoff encourages students to think critically about the power structure in American society and its implications for our democracy."

Here is a good taste with quite a few statistical graphs:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Edited February 20, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[Chris.S]

I didn't go too deep into your link, but from skimming, it seems like he's using the fact that wealthy people are able to buy off government officials in order to protect their wealth to argue that they are or will take control of the country, or have an unreasonable influence on "democracy". They also have a "disproportionate" share of the entire wealth of the country, and can use this to keep the less wealthy in the lower brackets.

You would have to ask a few questions:

How was the wealth earned by the wealthy?

Should government be able to use force to take that wealth away?

What actions are moral to keep one's wealth if the government should be or is able to take that wealth?

How much value is being offered to the average consumer by the wealthy?

When the author brings up the fact that most Americans don't have a good idea of the actual wealth distribution in the country, I would argue that that's probably due to the value they're receiving from the goods and services provided by the businesses of those wealthy people, as well as how "easy" it is to buy high-value or luxury goods [Did you notice how they define wealth in order to devalue how well the average person lives?]. From my understanding of the general American culture (which I would expand to include Canada and of which I could be entirely wrong about), people are able to work enough to get almost anything they want, and they don't care that another guy works harder to get more. And if they do care, they generally do two things: call for government action against the wealthy (I'd say this is a vocal minority) or work harder themselves (quiet majority).

I don't want to go further because this is just a rehashed argument for sacrificial wealth re-distribution based on perceived power to influence government with money.

[Maximus]

Heck, when it referred to our system of government as a "democracy," I knew I needn't read further.