reply to post by depleteduranium92
A good read on this subject and how it works would be Edward Alsworth Ross' Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order, which is freely
available to read via this link (just click the "full view" ilnk on the page): catalog.hathitrust.org...
In it, Ross basically postulates that there are 8 radiant points of social control. These radiant points are basically small groups within a society
that hold influence over it. Basically, government, property owners, intellectual elite, creative genius (artists), the clergy (religion), military
and etc. It's a really fantastic read. I heavily encourage any interested in how things work within society to read it as it also may serve as a
blueprint for why the world is the way it is today.
Typically, however, social control over the masses is divided between those 8 radiant points according to Ross and when imbalance occurs, the other
points exude their influence to basically reset the order. That's the way it's supposed to work, at least, in a typical society. So if the wealthy
property owners are up to no good, it's reasonable to expect that the artists, press, intellectual elite and etc will actually kick into action to
put them back in check. It's like a persistent tug of war but it may not always work out that way.
The US, for instance, is founded on a preference towards the protection of property owners. This kind of rhetoric is very easily noted if one peruses
the Federalist Papers. The framers of our second Constitution were incredibly influenced not only by the French Revolution but also due to Shay's
Rebellion in Massachusetts. I believe Madison, writing under the pseudonym Publius that postulated in one of the papers (maybe #10?) that if there
was any minority that, throughout history, was the target of a majority faction, it was the property owners. Hence, the US is tilted towards
protections for property owners and those nods are actually somewhat palpable in the Bill of Rights.
The little extra bump of protections towards the property owners within the US actually could have quite possibly created a slight and persistent
imbalance over time. Flash forward to today and it's possible to see the effects. Our creative geniuses are passed through the filters of wealth in
Hollywood and large record companies. Our press, again, is filtered through 5 giants themselves. Our intellectual elite (phds, scientists and etc)
can be bought to author papers that are steered towards the interests of those with wealth. Our military is influenced again by large and wealthy
defense contractors. Yadda yadda yadda.
In my business ethics class, the relationship and power of government, society, and business was a hot issue because of this growing imbalance. What
my professor postulated was that, over time, the business sector (wealthy property owners) have gained more and more influence within our government
through election into what was intended to be a representative government and through economic influences/productivity of the nation. Because of this
scenario, the influence that other sectors of society have upon our government has been largely reduced, as many can see for themselves, and it's a
circumstance that may be worsening. Originally the idea was for the United States to be a land of opportunity; however, because of all the above, it
is becoming increasingly stratified and more feudalistic in some ways.
Anyways, read Ross, poke around in the Federalist papers (also available online), and just look around. The answer as to why such a small portion of
a population can exude so much control are all out there.