[Marxism] Domhoff, Marx, and the Ruling Class

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

"In a dying civilization, political prestige is the reward not of the  
shrewdest diagnostician, but of the man with the best bedside manner.  
It is the decoration conferred on mediocrity by ignorance.

from "A Coffin for Dimitrios", by Eric Ambler


During a recent visit to my parent's home over the holidays, I was  
reminded of a comment by Marxmail contributor Anthony Boynton when I  
came across a book I had left there by William Domhoff titled "The  
Power Elite and the State" (1990).  Anthony had mentioned that  
Domhoff stood outside the marxist tradition. As it turns out, the  
truth of this assertion is both yes and no. I had picked this book up  
at a used bookstore some time ago and had never really read it. So I  
did, to see if it could tell me whether or not Domhoff is relevant  
for north american marxists, or to anyone who wants to understand the  
intersection of class and power in the USA.  Turns out both he, and  
this book, are of interest.

  The introduction offers a schema of different schools of political  
theory taught in US universities (probably a bit dated due to the  
influence of post-modernism there), and situates the author aligning  
himself with the 'plain marxists' over and against the liberal  
pluralists, the structural marxists, (or what  Mills called the  
"sophisticated marxists"), and the relative state autonomy  theorists  
like Skocpol.  Most of the essays which follow are mid-level  
empirical and historical studies that show Domhoff's kinship with  
what he calls the "plain marxist" school of dissident political and  
economic writing within the United States.

Domhoff combines an empirically-based institutional analysis with a  
class analysis. His original thesis was to see if Mill's power elite  
could be grounded in the marxian concept of the ruling class. First  
of all, he found a perfect overlap between Mill's power elite and  
'upper class' capitalists, and then he empirically demonstrated how  
capitalists both directly and indirectly influence policy making in  
the executive branch. He had achieved this synthesis by the mid-80's.  
On the other hand, although Domhoff does agree with Skocpol that the  
state has "potentially autonomous" counter-tendencies, he gives far  
less credence to state autonomy than the other authors within that  
camp, and he argues that the structural marxists in particular have  
wanted to give far more independent power to the state than reality  
merits.

Domhoff had drawn on marxist theory and praxis from the beginning of  
his academic career. He indicates his own early theoretical  
background as a mix of C. Wright Mills, Floyd Hunter, and the Monthly  
Review marxists: Paul Baran, Paul Sweezy, and Harry Magdoff.   
Domhoff  links his own early work to that of SNCC, SDS, and the early  
NACLA. See both "Who Rules America" (1967) and "The Higher  
Circles" (1970) for reference to that era. Domhoff mentions that the  
decline of this dissident movement within the academy occurred in  
tandem with the ebb of the New Left, and both the structural marxists  
and the more pluralistic "state autonomy" theorists filled the  
institutional and theoretical vacuum left in their wake:

"They shared the belief that plain marxists had a crude view of the  
state as the simple tool or "instrument" of capitalists. This  
"instrumentalist" view of the state was said to rest on personal  
linkages between capitalists and government officials, and to require  
the direct involvement of capitalists in the state. Instrumentalism  
was then contrasted with structuralism, which was said to be more  
sophisticated because it saw the state as an organizational entity  
within an overall system with underlying rules and imperatives. For  
the structural marxists, the state has relative autonomy from any  
specific capitalists or the capitalist class, but is in the general  
service of capitalism. For state autonomy theorists states are  
administrative, policing, and military organizations with a logic and  
interests of their own."

Although Domhoff clearly disagrees with the structuralists, he does  
argue that states may indeed supersede the authority of the dominant  
economic class to its own interests, and compete with it for  
resources. More recently, Domhoff has turned to historical work in  
the wake of the activist downturn and the lack of an audience for  
more contemporary appraisals of the ruling class, although recent  
history is clearly still within his purview. To that end, Domhoff has  
been influenced by one work in particular, "The Sources of Social  
Power: From the Beginnings of Civilization to 1760 A.D.", by Michael  
Mann.  According to Domhoff, Mann's theory of social power posits  
four interacting networks--ideological, economic, military, and  
political, none of which is inherently primary.  Domhoff revels in  
Mann's historical particularism, which argues that the european  
"miracle" was based on "a series of giant coincidences".   I have not  
read the book so cannot comment on it directly, merely to indicate in  
passing that it has influenced Domhoff's theoretical trajectory. He  
likes Mann's theory because it is "network based, historically  
focused, and empirical".

I notice that in reference to marxism, aside from the more positive  
attraction of his compatibility with the Monthly Review theorists,  
Domhoff tends to draw on second-hand sources for his understanding of  
Marx's historical work, and as I have not read those books I cannot  
comment on them, but at least one reference is critical of Marx's  
theory of Bonapartism.  Me, I'm still wading through Hal Draper.

That aside, the "mid-level" essays of the book are relevant, as they  
focus on key twentieth century political trends in US society, as  
reflected in specific legislation: the Social Security Act, the  
Wagner Act, the IMF, the Employment Act of 1946,  Class segments and  
Trade policy from 1917--1962, the rise of Reaganism, and the  
relationship between Democrats and the Ruling Class. The chapter on  
the Wagner Act is revealing in terms of the class struggle emphasis,  
and the intersection of competing ruling class interests leading to  
the development of ameliorating legislation. The section on capital- 
labor conflict and the rise of Reaganism is also an instructive read,  
and the essay on the Democrats has particular relevance to our  
current situation, as it compresses a history of the party into five  
pages.



Greg McDonald








________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu