Keith, you have either ignored or missed the point. You are speaking of corporations, governments, faculties of thought but the piece is of the grist that is needed to continue these "specialized power groups" that control our world and the sources from whence they come. I find the article to be very accurate from my own experience in both college and university with sports being a big contributor in my own case. Eventually each person has to choose: "Are you a team player, or can you think for yourself"? Consequently, my choices in later (professional) life meant lesser salary but a clear conscience. Empathy ruled my decisions. The article was pointing out the very lack of such that is sought by those who would destroy for the sake of control and profit.

Therefore your "fallacy" comment is fallacious but only due to misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

D.

On 01/08/2012 5:13 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
The same fallacy recurs in the truth-out piece as in Mike G's 1% elite. Mike S's 19% are no more uniform in detailed culture than the 1% was. In any advanced country today there are anything up to a dozen spccialized power groups which are hovering around and influencing the main economic decisions of the formal signatories (the government group). These, be it noted, more or less continuously have the ear of one or more government ministers (compared with commercial lobby groups which come and go adventitiously according to the particular privileges they are seeking). (Lobby groups spring from the corporate world mainly -- and their leaders come from a wide variety of early backgrounds.) The dozen or so I'm talking about generally share the same culture (due to private education and preferential access to elite universities)vis-a-vis the 80-class but their specific cultures will be distinct according to individual abilities, the specific schools and universities they went to, their early career opportunities.

While the dozen or so groups comprising the 19% are constantly seething in mutual competition in order to influence government decisions, they certainly don't hold the others in contempt. At least. most of them don't, being aware of the abilities and expertise of the others. I can immediately think of three specialized groups (the army chiefs, investment bankers in recent years, politicians) which fit into the fraternities and sororities background almost perfectly but not others which certainly didn't when their members were at university (top civil servants, the scientific [fast-rising in influence but which is still relatively recent], creative artists).

Keith




At 07:58 01/08/2012, Mike wrote:

Relevant to Keith's 20/80 demographic split, here's a piece that casts
some light on where the 1% gets the other 19% needed  as
well-remunerated support  for the 1%'s power and life style:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10590-the-ruling-elite-and-the-perversion-of-scholarship

From the article:

    Hazing, comradeship and complicity in sexual abuse, including rape,
    make up the glue that holds campus sports teams and fraternity houses
together. The National Study of Student Hazing reports that 73 percent
    of U.S. fraternities and sororities haze. [....] Hazing weeds out
    those with enough self-esteem and independence to stand up to the
    hierarchy. It ensures conformity and obedience. These groups are, in
    essence, self-selected. Those who have the fortitude and courage to
    oppose their own public humiliation and the public humiliation
    perpetuated with each new cycle of recruits or pledges leave. Those
    who remain conform.

    [snip]

    The corporate world sees football players, fraternity brothers and
sorority sisters as prime recruits. They have been conditioned to join the team, to surrender moral autonomy, to accept and carry out acts of
    personal humiliation, to treat with contempt those who oppose them or
    who are different, to define their life by an infantile narcissism
centered on greed and self-promotion and to remain silent about crimes
    they witness or take part in. It is the very ethic of corporations.

The ruling elite sees in Greek organizations and football programs the
    training ground for the amoral class of speculators, bankers and
    corporatists who pillage the country.

    [snip]

    Corporate culture, which now dominates higher education, shares the
    predatory culture of the military. These cultures are about subsuming
    the self into the herd. They are about the acquiring of technical,
    vocational skills to serve the system. And with the increasing budget
cuts, and more craven obsequiousness to corporate donors, it will only
    get worse. These forces of conformity are hostile to the humanities
    that teach students to question assumptions and structures, that prod
them to seek a life of meaning and an ethical code that challenges the blind, utilitarian obedience to power and profit that corporations and
    the military instill.

I was more or less aware of this when I was in school, especially
reinforced by a happenstance encounter at an Amherst fraternity. But
I never thought clearly of it in systemic terms.


FWIW,
- Mike

--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada       .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ <http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework <https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework>

Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>


_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to