|
|
|
|
|
|
by jl2718
1967 days ago
|
|
|
Your post assumes the existence of a ‘ruling elite’ which is the tautological feed stock of nearly all ‘conspiracy theories’. But our system is very complicated. There are supposed to be checks and balances at every level that comprise a type of Sybil resistance to rife dishonesty and exploitation from one person no matter how wealthy or to what position they were elected. Thus it would take a conspiracy, or at least some level of coercion or bribery, to subvert our system. Is it really just a bunch of hard-working impeccably-honest people engaged in fierce competition against each other at the top, as we were told to assume in Econ101? Or is it more like cooperative game theory where normal people are not players, but the game itself. Or is it something different altogether, not motivated by profits, but by ideology, something secret and anathema to those not in on it? It seems that the latter is simultaneously most celebrated and feared, that ‘the elite’ would use their power to manipulate us into something of their liking, “to serve man”, presented as broad selfless gestures of benevolence and philanthropy. It seems today that all voices of power are engaged in a constant rally of fear-mongering, hatred, and censorship against the few voices screaming, “it’s a cookbook”. Sometimes I wonder whether this is a clear implication of something wicked, or just a profitable form of madhouse entertainment, full of social illusions. |
|
|
It's simply the upper-crust of the managerial class, all mostly similarly acculturated, pursuing their own class interests and looking out for their own, and listening to the same public signals everyone else can see. No coercion or explicit bribery is necessary, although there is plenty of money flowing around. Though typically ideological/cultural commitment is more than sufficient, remuneration typically consists simply of the knowledge that considerations are on the table - play the game and you will be assured a successful career for yourself and for your family and friends, whether that consists of board memberships, government jobs, NGO/charity placements, consultancies, media placement, or simply ascending the career ladder at your company. None of this is usually explicit. Playing along, even if you don't personally believe in it (which most do - it's self interest) sends a valuable social signal. Nor am I assigning a moral value to this behavior. It would not even be a social issue if it wasn't for the increasing gap between the managerial class, especially the managerial elite, and the rest of the country.
There are supposed to be checks and balances ideally, but no such ideal system exists or ever has existed. In the sense of the System as a whole, no checks and balances were ever designed; if we limit ourselves to the American federal government, the system has long since grown into something else beyond its original design - not because of some grim ideological conspiracy as conservatives would have it, but because the growing complexity of society necessitated it. (An important factor in the increasingly undemocratic nature of the government is the sheer scale and complexity of society.) The impact is the same, though, and the checks-and-balances people are taught in civics misrepresent the nature of the government and practically exclude altogether the interrelated nature of the government and large corporations.