The greatest tragedy in human history

[arildno]

She doesn't have to. GD is the place for bald assertions and unfounded allegations.

 

[Danger]

GD is the place for bald assertions

Not any more; merkins are now available at the PF store.

 

[arildno]

Well, you've got more use for a merkin than I have, whatever a merkin is.

 

[Joel]

Joel, are you talking to yourself now? :rofl: Sorry for not responding earlier. I was sort of worrying about having sabotaged this thread completely - but I guess people who were going to respond to the original question have already done so now, so maybe it's ok to keep talking about this new topic here..?

Nothing to be sorry about, it's just a while since I've read about these things and my memory is a bit fuzzy (hence the first incoherent post). So, I checked it up and thought I'd make a more coherent post that everyone could follow. Not cracking up (yet)!

Oh, and my impression about these GD threads is that they seldom end up under the initial topic. I'd say It's cool. (Says the one doing the hijacking )

Mills, Dahl and the other elite theorists are not Marxist - well, not according to my understanding of Marxism, or according to any of the critiques I have read of elite theory. Elite theory essentially separates economic domination from political rule, while Marxist theories see economic power as an integral part of the political process. There are various criticisms of elite theory, one of which you have included in your quote (this criticism applies to Dahl’s idea that:

Yes, that's also my understanding; traditional Elite theories say a few people hold political power through various institutions, not, as Marx would say, by controlling the capital. I thought it would be good to make this distinction since Elite theories build upon Marx and I guess they could easily be confused with one and other.

A general Marxist criticism of elite theories is that they cannot identify the underlying basis of political power; they tend to obscure reality rather than revealing it.

Yes, I've actually heard that criticism before. Other criticism, by pluralists, is that Elite theories over emphasize the role of the State and don't take into consideration actors in the civic society; the media, NGO:s, academics, etc. But I've also understood it works the other way around; Elite theorists criticize Marxist theories for not taking the State, as an independent actor, into consideration and Pluralists say Marxist theories don't conceder all the other political actors independently.

Hmm, I see that one of the URLs you provided - http://www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/davis/IGelite.htm - describes Marx as an elite theorist; very odd – I’ve never come across such a classification before (and it doesn’t make sense to me).

Me nighter, good point. I thought. "Hey, a site by a pol. sci. professor, it has to be right!" So, much for that. But, maybe he has a good reason for it? Who knows...

PS: If you’re interested, here’s a website with information about some key sociological theorists/theories: http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/%7Elridener/DSS/INDEX.HTML . Unfortunately, neither Mills nor Dahl are listed there (but Marx and Pareto are). A google search also brought up this interesting page that briefly outlines Mills’ and Dahl’s theories (scroll down the page to the section entitled ‘The State’): http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/sociology/introsoc/CUOnlineRevise/UnitNotes/Week10.html

Always good with more web-resources, it's much easier to copy&paste than copy books. Thank you! My google search brought up these notes on Pluralism, Elite Theories, Marxist Theories, Realism and Corporatism, as theories of State and Power. http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~evanderveen/wvdv/Political_sociology/political_sociological_theories.htm

 

[Danger]

Well, you've got more use for a merkin than I have, whatever a merkin is.

See post #90 here