BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Analysis: Power.

 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
22:59 / 02.11.02
I believe we need a constructive analysis of the many underlying factors that dominate society. What they are, what they have been, how/if they are changing, how they affect society and how we can react, change and use them.

The first and maybe most important factor may be power.

Power to many, is the driving force of social change. It affects everyone, if they have it, are subject to it or want it. I would say it is usually concentrated in a small minority but changes hands at certain points in time, from the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie and from the bourgeoisie to what? I would state that the church was a tool of the aristocracy, politics the tool of the bourgeoisie and the media of the new dominant class. The reason I have not defined the new dominant class is that it is not overtly apparent.

This is not as ignorant as it seems, we are living in a time where the power structure is changing and the new dominant class does not want to identify or label itself until it has reached its ascension. A clear understanding of the new power transfer would enable the underclass to gain some sort of understanding of the possibility of social control.

One thing I believe is that the media is a medium for this shift in power.

Another issue is a fear or reluctance of the present resistance movement, to gain or posse's power.

I hope that criticisms of what I imply can be used towards an analysis of the nature of power in the present world.
 
 
Pepsi Max
08:09 / 03.11.02
Can you start by defining what you mean by "power"? I realise that this may seem petty but at the moment your post seems very abstract. So: Power. What is it? How is it wielded?

At the moment oyur post seems to be on a kinda Marxist tip with references to different classes. You also talk about "tools" allaying each tool with a particular class structure. More on this please.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
08:47 / 04.11.02
I agree with Pepsi Max that we need to make the terms of debate explicit. Are we to hold strictly to Marxist analysis? In that case power is a relation to the means of production. The owners hold their power-position due to ownership of the means of survival and the artifacts of production. The workers’ relative power would still be dependent on the necessity of their labour-time to the operation of the owners’ crystallized capital, be it weaving machines or airtime.

I disagree with the statement that there is a new dominant class. There has been no overthrow of the existing mode of production. The technologies of communication and production may have changed in part but the organization of labour has not. What is happening is that a different segment of the dominant class has achieved ascendancy within their class as part of the normal ongoing intraclass strife.

To use the analysis of David Harvey from his book The Condition of Postmodernity, there has been a change in the regime of production. The regime of production being the set of compromises between labour, capital and the state. The regimes of capital that Harvey has previously identified were primitive capitalism, fordism and flexible accumulation. What we have now may be the transition between investment capital and communication capital. The terms of the debate are still capital so the dominant class are still in some sense the bourgeoisie.

David Harvey. THE CONDITION OF POSTMODERNITY: AN ENQUIRY INTO THE ORIGINS OF CULTURAL CHANGE. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990.
 
  
Add Your Reply