Provocative question: Why must we liberals always reduce the definition of power down...

[Writer]

into simplistic terms of "money" and "who has that money?"

Are there not more complete definitions of power?

DISCUSS!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Because two-dimensional,

simplistic thinking, without the benefit of historical perspective or knowledge, is easy.

And it's a whole lot easier to be mad at abstracts that cannot be controlled than to break down the problem into meaningful factions. That would take work, and critical thinking, and the exercise of one's ability to tolerate ideas that may not comport with yours. It might even involved doing something, something as simple as picking up a book and reading it.

Mostly, it's fun just to rag on those who are perceived as powerful and wealthy. Blame is such a blessed relief when the guilt gets to be too much..............

[Hannah Bell]

18. "without the benefit of historical perspective or knowledge"

because "historical perspective & knowledge" is sure to show the relative unimportance of money in terms of power-getting.

lol.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. That's an interesting conclusion -

I'm sure it took years and years of study to arrive at it.

Next, the invention of the wheel, or the discovery of fire?

You're on a roll. Don't stop............................

[Hannah Bell]

23. it's not a "conclusion".

[Tangerine LaBamba]

33. Oh, really?

And what are you calling it?

A fact? A reality? A rule of life?

It's a conclusion. Be strong. You're big enough to have conclusions now.......................

[Hannah Bell]

34. really.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

35. You know,

all you've got is Subject Line, and that is proof positive that your stance - whatever it is - lacks substance, and you lack the intellectual armaments necessary to pursue any kind of worthwhile discussion. As I said, you state conclusions - not even enough to put into a coherent sentence.

Too bad - there could have been some interesting ideas passed back and forth, but you lack any, so I guess I gave you too much credit without realizing the emptiness there.

Ah, well. Life goes on............................................

[Hannah Bell]

36. nothing but personal attack from the get-go.

so disingenuous to pretend you were interested in any exchange of ideas.

as disingenuous as your op.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. Yeah, right -

personal attack - the notion of "conclusions" is a personal attack.

You've got nothing. And this silly idea of "personal attack" just proves it. But you did manage to get past the Subject Line, which is a major accomplishment.

Still, you've got nothing.

You're dismissed...........................

[Political Heretic]

39. Try this on for size then:

We could take the time, every time, to remind all readers on a political discussion board that when we make references to "power" we are referring to political power unless otherwise stated...

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone of a robust class analysis that discusses the statistically shrinking middle class and the growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans inevitably leads to the conclusion that the disproportionate consolidation of wealth leads to the disproportionate distribution of power and that this is inseparably linked to any discussion of political power...

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone that in a capitalist society such as this one - particularly a late-capitalist or "corporate" capitalist system - money is an extremely potent tool for wielding power, so much of it is consolidated into the hands of a very small number of people. They then spend that money to buy control and influence...

Those with the most money can buy lobbyists to ensure their voices are heard in government.

Those with the most money can buy advertising to ensure their voices are heard in the media.

Those with the most money can buy property to ensure their voices are heard in local communities.

Those with the most money can afford to run for office themselves, and are the only ones who can afford a national campaign (and often state campaigns as well).

And so on.

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone that we cannot easily speak of political power in a late-capitalist society in a government that populated primarily by those who spent more money than their opponents on their political campaigns without talking about the connection between money and political power....

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone of the reasons why talking about money as the key component of political power in a late-capitalist society such as this one makes so much sense - giving examples like this very health care reform "debate" and the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by big businesses to impose their will on the issue (and they have successfully done so already,) or the number of policy proposals that are overwhelmingly supported by the bottom four fifths of America in poll after poll, that are furiously resisted by that top one fifth of Americans and consequently never get done.

We could take the time, every time, to rehash all of this. But as Jon Stewart says, some of us have got SHIT TO DO.

So instead we could simply accept a pretty evidence-based truth: in late-capitalist society such as this one, money is inexorably connected to political power.

[FarCenter]

2. Power is the ability to get others to think or behave differently than they would on their own

Money is one way to exert power.

But their are lots of others.

[Hannah Bell]

15. money is the #1 way to do so on a mass basis. it costs money to use media,

money to hire people to do things, money to supply cadres, money to rent office space, telephones - money to do just about anything. volunteerism doesn't pay the bills, & ordinary people only have a limited amount of energy & time to devote to a non-profit cause before they need to feed themselves.

individuals or groups of individuals may have personal magnetism, great ideas, skills - whatever.

if they don't have money or can't get someone to give them some, the scope of their power will remain limited and their acts mostly unknown, limited to their personal or local circle.

[Carl Skan]

3. It's not just liberals

And reply #1 nailed it.

[lunatica]

4. Speak for yourself (with all due respect here)

I find that people go after money BECAUSE it gives them the power they crave. It's not greed, it's not the accouterments and window dressing of expensive things that attracts them. It's the power that such accouterments give them.

Money is not the root of all evil as so many people quote erroneously. It's the LOVE of money that's the root of all evil. Money means power. If they could get power with chocolate chipped cookies they would amass those.

[gateley]

5. I honestly think it IS always the money. It's always the fucking money. Always. nt

[baldguy]

6. There are many types & definitions of power.

However, money is an easy way to buy power for those who aren't on the side of the law, morality, justice, "god", or the majority of the people.

[pennylane100]

7. I do not think that power is necessarily achieved only through money.

Look at people like David Koresch and Jim Jones. Their power came from preying on people who needed a powerful role model. Ghandi's power came from his ability to get people to believe in him.
Of course, money always helps. There are very few rich people on death row.

[Hannah Bell]

17. koresh's church = about 100 people, jones' = about 900.

both had some variety of personal magnetism & appeal to certain ideas or needs.

jones' reputed ties to us intelligence & the california political establishment make that a complicated nut, but in the case of koresh, he apparently didn't have much power beyond his small circle, & he & his followers were easily destroyed by larger powers for reasons which were never very clear.

the issue is scale. if i can get my little sister to give me her ice cream money, that's "power".

apparently some feel there's a kind of equivalence between me strong-arming my sister & the power of the walmart waltons - or that by using the "powers" of personal magnetism, moral suasion, ideas, friendship & volunteerism, it's a simple thing for ordinary folk to counter the power of the waltons, whose stores = about 10% of all US retail sales, & whose personal fortunes are in the billions.

people who deny the primacy of money are disingenuous, or haven't thought about the problem of organizing long enough.

[sandnsea]

8. It's the power. Not the money.

Those who have power know that they can keep power if they control the money. They do not care about the money itself, except to the extent it gives them power.

If people would understand that's why their vote still has power, they would understand they always have the ability to scare these people into compliance.

[salguine]

9. It's simple. The reality is that, in the America of 2009, power, and nothing else,

is "money" and "who has that money."

[Odin2005]

10. Economic power is political power.

I generally disagree with the Marxists, but in that point they are right. Any "democratic" government is corruptible by money and must be protected from it's influence.

[david13]

11. Money is power and power is money. Money

is a paper representation of economic power. You can't be a purist and separate the two. All those religious nuts obtain vast, unbelievable sums of money. And it gives them the power to obtain real estate, vast acreage for their 'compound'.
Etc.
dc

[xchrom]

12. if i'm thinking about THIS country and the masses --

we've spent an enormous amount of time cultivating the notion that those with money have the power.

it's the difference between the way europeans take to the streets and americans don't in their own interests.

it's the way we have weasled power away from unions and into the upper percentiles.

it's the way we have led people to believe government is the arch enemy of the individual.

it's a long historical process in this country --

[Trillo]

13. The love of money is the problem? Are you sure?

So the logic that we shouldn't take away money because it's the love of money that's the real problem, is a diversion or "moving the goalposts" that shifts money's effects onto individuals. This is similar to how our media is always telling us we as individuals are depressed and need to pop some fancy new anti-depressant Rx pills, but it never wants to refer to the economy as depressed, even when all evidence suggests it is: This is a shifting of blame and guilt to individuals, a shifting from higher pyramidal levels to lower.

If the love of money is the root of all evil, then why would corporations ever be legal? Since corporations are legal, we can presume that the "love of money" is not a problem, since corporations are not sentient beings, and their entire purpose of existence is the extraction of money and profit. Have we been lied to? Again?

It seems a big problem is money itself, since we've been the subject of a millenia long disinformation campaign, so a few can prey upon the many, by using the power of money; what it allows a few to do, such as bribing a republics legislators, and what it prevents the many from doing, such as getting healthcare, or even food and shelter, when they need it.

In this realm, money itself is the evil.

No more money is the solution.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Sometimes I talk about the power of love, and you know

you can't buy the genuine article.

[Hannah Bell]

19. sure you can. or rather, significant *differences* in wealth destroy love.

[LiberalAndProud]

21. I suppose.

And love relationships can take a beating from too little money, or disagreements about spending, or certain outside "interests". But I wasn't thinking in terms of romantic relationships ... those seem to often be such fragile flowers anyway.

[Hannah Bell]

22. family relationships & friendships too.

[LiberalAndProud]

24. Yours? I'm so sorry.

Yes, I think that both love and money do not have equal power.


a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise that slave will honor the one and offend the other.

[Hannah Bell]

25. now why would you make that personal assumption?

[LiberalAndProud]

26. My first thought was

it wasn't really love then, was it?

And on second thought, maybe you were speaking from personal experience, and it would be an insult to pretend that I could know the quality or character of the love destroyed.

And finally, I should have said, Yours? If so, I'm so sorry.

I didn't mean to offend, I hate it when I do that.

[Trillo]

27. Why are love relationships always considered by folks to be limited to

those who may engage in physical sex acts?

The definition of the word "romantic" is much more broad than that narrow sub-inclusion.

Anyway, I suppose this is largely offtopic. Sorry.

[Trillo]

29. Sure. Isn't that one of the primary lessons of history?

n/t

[voc]

16. He who controls the money controls the people....

“The borrower is the slave to the lender." -- King Solomon

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Money confers power. See Lord Acton's axiom for what happens then.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[The Straight Story]

30. Money is a reason some liberals give to want to control your life (like christians use jesus/sin)

Your smoking/eating/decisions/etc affect my cost of health care so therefore I have the right to remove freedoms from you to save me money.

Hell, consenting adults can't choose to smoke together anymore (or chose not to, before people had a choice of where to do business), we want to control access to soda for our kids in schools (less choice is always better, your body our choice is the new mantra), etc and so on.

Worship of god/religion has never been the real problem in this world, it has been power and money - and we are seeing it all again right here on both sides of the aisle.

[AuntPatsy]

31. No because to obtain true power money is needed and the fact is it matters greatly

who has obtained that money...

Take a trip through time...can you give me one instance where the gathering of fiances did not result in a strong power hold other than in the cave man era....

[Orsino]

32. When everyone admits to the existence of the elephant in the living room...

...I will be happy to see our discourse deepen. Until that acknowledgment comes, though, the discussion will always miss the mark.

[Political Heretic]

38. Try this on for size then:

We could take the time, every time, to remind all readers on a political discussion board that when we make references to "power" we are referring to political power unless otherwise stated...

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone of a robust class analysis that discusses the statistically shrinking middle class and the growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans inevitably leads to the conclusion that the disproportionate consolidation of wealth leads to the disproportionate distribution of power and that this is inseparably linked to any discussion of political power...

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone that in a capitalist society such as this one - particularly a late-capitalist or "corporate" capitalist system - money is an extremely potent tool for wielding power, so much of it is consolidated into the hands of a very small number of people. They then spend that money to buy control and influence...

Those with the most money can buy lobbyists to ensure their voices are heard in government.

Those with the most money can buy advertising to ensure their voices are heard in the media.

Those with the most money can buy property to ensure their voices are heard in local communities.

Those with the most money can afford to run for office themselves, and are the only ones who can afford a national campaign (and often state campaigns as well).

And so on.

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone that we cannot easily speak of political power in a late-capitalist society in a government that populated primarily by those who spent more money than their opponents on their political campaigns without talking about the connection between money and political power....

We could take the time, every time, to remind everyone of the reasons why talking about money as the key component of political power in a late-capitalist society such as this one makes so much sense - giving examples like this very health care reform "debate" and the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by big businesses to impose their will on the issue (and they have successfully done so already,) or the number of policy proposals that are overwhelmingly supported by the bottom four fifths of America in poll after poll, that are furiously resisted by that top one fifth of Americans and consequently never get done.

We could take the time, every time, to rehash all of this. But as Jon Stewart says, some of us have got SHIT TO DO.

So instead we could simply accept a pretty evidence-based truth: in late-capitalist society such as this one, money is inexorably connected to political power.