Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism

—   El   —

The mystical concept of “the life force” in
idealist philosophy, which anti-materialist philosophers once absurdly thought explained the difference between living things and dead matter.
        See also: Henri BERGSON,   ENTELECHY,   VITALISM

“In the nineteenth century, many early biologists were convinced that life had an essence, a vital force. The science of biology was in many times and places dedicated to revealing the secret force that animated gross matter and made it into mayflies and marigolds and meerkats. After a century or so of tireless dissection and analysis, though, biologists concluded that the secret was that there was no secret; the eeriness of this haunting was that there was no ghost to explain it. Twentieth-century biochemistry, and later molecular biology, showed that life was made of the same stuff as non-life, and obeyed the same rules. The processes of life did not need to take place in a tissue or a cell, they could all be replicated in a test tube. As far as the electrons are concerned, respiration is no different to rusting.” —Oliver Morton, Eating the Sun: How Plants Power the Planet, (NY: Harper-Perennial, 2009), p. 156.

A loose school of ancient Greek idealist philosophical thought which was most likely founded by
Parmenides of Elea in the 6th century BCE, and included his followers Zeno of Elea (who was also Parmenides’s lover) and the lesser-known Melissus of Samos. However, Xenophanes of Collophon, who may have influenced Parmenides, is called the founder of the Eleatic School by Plato.
        The fundamental doctrine of this school was that (despite all appearances) the world consists of one indivisible and unchanging reality. They even thought that movement was “impossible”! Strangely, Hegel said that the origin of dialectics was with the Eleatics, though he really just had Zeno’s famous paradoxes in mind as he said this. In effect Zeno may have been using some early idealist dialectical thinking to (absurdly) argue against the possibility of movement, change or development in the physical world itself.

The Eleatic school (end of 6th-5th century B.C.) was named after the town of Elea in Southern Italy. In contradistinction to the natural dialectic teachings of the Miletian [or Ionian] school, and of Heraclitus, regarding the changeable nature of things, the Eleatic school believed in their individisible, immovable, unchangeable, homogeneous, continuous, eternal essence. At the same time, some of the propositions of representatives of the Eleatic school, and particularly the proofs advanced by Zeno concerning the contradictoriness of motion (the so-called paradoxes of Zeno), despite their metaphysical conclusions, played a positive role in the development of ancient dialectics, having raised the problem of expressing in logical concept the contadictory character of the processes of motion.” —Note 77, LCW 38:572-3.

The refusal to believe the official outcome of an election, based on claims such as that the election was rigged or phony. Of course all elections in
bourgeois democracies are actually rigged and phony, no matter how truthful and accurate the counting of the votes may be. And this is for many important reasons, including the basic fact that the ruling bourgeoisie owns nearly all of the media that informs people; controls the education (or indoctrination!) of the people; has the vast majority of wealth which they use to buy the loyalty of politicians; and on and on.
        In addition some bourgeois “democracies” have many additional anti-democratic configurations in their electoral system. The U.S., for example, has many anti-democratic arrangements written into its Constitution, which prevent each vote from counting the same as any other vote. Each state has two Senators, regardless of their population; so the Senate represention from smaller, less populous, states is undemocratically exaggerated. Then too, the Electoral College system means that quite often the Presidential candidate receiving the most votes does not win the election! This hoaky undemocratic system meant that in the 2000 election Al Gore lost to George W. Bush even though Gore received 2,868,686 more votes than Bush did. In the 2016 Presidential election the Electoral College made Donald Trump the winner even though Hillary Clinton received 543,895 more votes. [For details see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote   ]
        On top of these Constitution-based forms of anti-democracy there are additional ways of cheating built into the American electoral system. One very important such method, which is used at all levels from local to national elections, is through Gerrymandering. The party in power in a state or region adjusts the boundaries of the electoral districts (such as for Congressional districts or state legislature districts) so that they undemocratically win more than their fair share of districts that they would if every person’s vote counted equally. Both Republicans and Democrats make big use of this method, though in recent years the Republicans have been most outrageous in doing so.
        However, even in a deformed bourgeois democracy such as the United States, the population has ordinarily been conditioned to ignore all these much more profoundly anti-democratic structures and methods! So in denying that an election is fair, the only thing that is supposed to matter is whether the votes were correctly counted. But if the votes were not even (more or less) correctly counted, then a question might be raised as to whether we are really talking about a bourgeois democracy at all, or rather instead a hidden authoritarian regime making a pretense at being a democracy. This might be a major concern for a true-believer in the bourgeois interpretation of “democracy”. However, probably most Marxist-Leninist-Maoists would consider that one group of capitalists stealing elections through ballot-box stuffing (or emptying)—bad as that may be—is usually much less important in regard to viewing the regime as a bourgeois democracy than what is of most concern to us: the continuation of relative freedoms of speech, of the press, and to assemble and organize the people around their common interests, that are also normally a part of bourgeois democracy. After all, we are already well aware that different sections of the bourgeoisie attempt to cheat each other in elections in many other ways, such as by attempting to control the masses’ voting in their favor through expensive media advertising, by spreading lies and other forms of disinformation, through Gerrymandering, etc.
        However, the mere claim that the vote counting in an election is rigged or phony does not prove it so. And in a country like the United States which—in the recent past anyway—usually more or less correctly counts the votes in major elections, it is interestingly the most reactionary and authoritarian-minded individuals, like Donald Trump and his followers, who claim with no evidence that the votes are not being counted correctly. For someone of his authoritarian mindset, the votes can only have been counted more or less correctly if he is declared the winner.
        Widespread adoption of electoral denialism within a bourgeois democracy—as has now occurred in the U.S.—is a serious sign that the bourgeoisie may be on the verge of transforming that nominal democracy into an authoritarian form of bourgeois rule; that is to say, into fascism—an openly bourgeois class dictatorship.
        See also: DISINFORMATION

ELECTIONS — Corporate Influence In or Control Of
In the United States the U.S. Supreme Court has absurdly ruled that corporations have the same right of “free speech” that people do, and that therefore corporations cannot be restricted in their massive financial manipulation of American elections. This has led to a situation where the biggest corporations by themselves now often strongly influence, or outright determine, the outcome of elections. Bourgeois “democracy” in the U.S. is more and more under the direct control of giant corporations.

ELECTIONS — In a Bourgeois Democracy
Elections in a
bourgeois democracy are essentially fraudulent, as far as classes other than the capitalist ruling class are concerned. This is because all the major parties which are promoted by the capitalist system and its overwhelmingly dominant and smothering mass media represent the bourgeoisie; because all the most basic and important matters are never up for discussion and decision in the first place (since the ruling class parties already agree about them); and because the choices about candidates and questions which are being allowed are almost exclusively about very secondary issues on which the ruling class itself is not already in complete agreement.
        However, for the different and competing sections within the ruling class these essentially phony elections (from the point of view of the revolutionary proletariat) can be extremely important. The right politicians can favor the interests of one of these sections as compared to another, and enormous potential future profits can be at stake. For this reason billions of dollars are now routinely spent in American elections to promote the differing interests of different sections of the ruling class.
        In addition to their important purpose in deciding intra-ruling class disputes, elections in bourgeois societies serve another—and much more important purpose: namely, further indoctrinating the masses and getting them to believe that they have the ultimate say about how society should be run, and that therefore they are themselves responsible for the decisions made by the government. It is possible for the ruling capitalist class to literally get away with mass murder (at home and abroad) when they can convince the people that this was the people’s own decision.
        See also: LESSER OF TWO EVILS,   MAJORITY [Hinton quote]

“Did you, too, O friend,
         suppose democracy was only for
         elections, for politics, and for a party name?”
         —Walt Whitman, “Democratic Vistas” (1871)
         [Real democracy is a matter of allowing the people to control their own lives, and of allowing the majority of the people to govern in their own interests (which the phony manipulated elections in the U.S. do not actually permit). —Ed.]

“There are five or six people in this room tonight that could simply make a decision—this will be the next president—and probably at least get a nomination, if ultimately the person didn’t win. And that’s not the way things are supposed to work.” —President Barack Obama, February 2012, hat-in-hand at a small political fund-raising event attended by billionaires including Bill Gates, then the richest man in America. Quoted in Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (2016), p. 321.

“It is well established that electoral campaigns are designed so as to marginalize issues and focus on personalities, rhetorical style, body language, and the like. And there are good reasons. Party managers read polls and are well aware that on host of major issues, both parties are well to the right of the population—not surprisingly; they are, after all, business parties. Polls show that a large majority of voters object, but those are the only choices offered to them in the business-managed electoral system, in which the most heavily funded candidate almost always wins.” —Noam Chomsky, Optimism Over Despair: On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017), p. 7.

“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” —Paul Weyrich, a conservative political strategist, 1980. Online at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Interesting_ALEC_Quotes
         [It is indeed in the interests of each section of the capitalist ruling class to discourage voting by those who would support the other sections, and to strongly encourage voting by those potential voters who would side with them. The Democrats in the US make great efforts to get unionized workers and minorities to vote, while the Republicans concentrate on white people, rural areas, and the better off neighborhoods and suburbs. The Republicans often take this further and try to outright disenfranchize people who are more likely to vote against them. There is strong reason to believe they succeeded in electing George W. Bush president in 2000 through preventing many African-Americans from voting (or from having their votes counted) in Florida and elsewhere.
         In the US “two party system” the Republicans generally take a harder line against the working class, minorities and the poor. The Democrats approach to maintaining bourgeois rule is to pretend to be the friends of the people; in other words they are generally more demagogic—though all bourgeois parties are demagogic to a considerable degree. (And Donald Trump, the Republican presidential victor in 2016 was as much of a demagogue as any Democrat.) In other words, the Democrats and the Republicans have something like what is known as a “good cop, bad cop” routine for fooling the people. As such, it is more important for the Republicans to try to actually restrict voting, and much more important for the Democrats to constantly emphasize the importance of “getting out the vote” and to fool the people into thinking that voting is going to make an important difference in their lives. But whichever party wins these elections, the capitalist class stays in firm control. —S.H.]

ELECTIONS — Foreign Imperialist Manipulation Of
Virtually all modern imperialist powers try to manipulate, and to the greatest extent possible, to control the elections and the overall societies of other countries, including those of their imperialist competitors. However, at least since World War II, the greatest efforts by far to accomplish such things have been by the United States government. A major part of the work of the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency is for this purpose, though that is only part of the story. So-called “foreign aid” and activities and agreements pushed on other countries by the U.S. State Department are also of major significance in this regard. And of course American imperialism by no means limits its attempts to control other countries to mere electoral interference; on the contrary, outright violence of all kinds, including assassinations, military interventions, and outright major wars, are also all part of the same overall effort.
        See also: EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION (McCoy quote)

“According to a compilation at Carnegie Mellon University, between 1946 and 2000 the rival superpowers intervened in 117 elections, or 11 percent of all the competitive national-level contests held worldwide, via campaign cash and media disinformation. Significantly, the United States was responsible for eighty-one of these attempts (70 percent of the total)—including eight instances in Italy, five in Japan, and several in Chile and Nicaragua stiffened by CIA paramilitary action.” —Alfred W. McCoy, In the Shadows of the American Century (2017), p. 55.
         [These were just some of the more specific and more blatant imperialist manipulations of foreign elections. Since World War II, agencies of US imperialism (especially the CIA) have had in addition many general ideological (“propaganda”) operations in constant operation all around the world, a principal purpose of which is the manipulation of foreign elections. It is not just “the 11%” of foreign elections which are manipulated by imperialism to one degree or another, but the great majority of them! And of course those elections held within imperialist countries themselves are even more determinedly “manipulated” by the local capitalist-imperialist ruling class—since they basically control these elections, from the selection of major candidates to almost the entire media coverage of them. It is only when some competing imperialist power deigns to try to manipulate these elections to their own advantage that the local imperialists start to howl so hypocritically. This is what happened in 2016 with the possibly successful efforts of the Russian imperialists to slightly tilt the US presidential election in favor of Trump. —Ed.]

The Long History of US Meddling in Foreign Elections
         C. J. Polychroniou: “Noam, the US intelligence agencies have accused Russia of interference in the US presidential election [in 2016] in order to boost Trump’s chances, and some leading Democrats have actually gone on record saying that the Kremlin’s canny operatives changed the election outcome. What’s your reaction to all this talk in Washington and among media pundits about Russian cyber and propaganda efforts to influence the outcome of the presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor?”
         Noam Chomsky: “Much of the world must be astonished—if they are not collapsing in laughter—while watching the performances in high places and in media concerning Russian efforts to influence an American election, a familiar US government specialty as far back as we choose to trace the practice. There is, however, merit in the claim that this case is different in character; by US standards, the Russian efforts are so meager as to barely elicit notice.”
         C. J. Polychroniou: “Let’s talk about the long history of US meddling in foreign political affairs, which has always been morally and politically justified as the spread of American-style democracy throughout the world.”
         Noam Chomsky: “The history of US foreign policy, especially after World War II, is pretty much defined by the subversion and overthrow of foreign regimes, including parliamentary regimes, and the resort to violence to destroy popular organizations that might offer the majority of the population an opportunity to enter the political arena.
        “Following World War II, the United States was committed to restoring the traditional conservative order. To achieve this aim, it was necessary to destroy the antifascist resistance, often in favor of Nazi and fascist collaborators, to weaken unions and other popular organizations, and to block the threat of radical democracy and social reform, which were live options under the conditions of the time. These policies were pursued worldwide: in Asia, including South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Indochina, and, crucially, Japan; in Europe, including Greece, Italy, France, and crucially, Germany; in Latin America, including what the CIA took to be the most severe threats at the time, ‘radical nationalism’ in Guatemala and Bolivia.
        “Sometimes the task required considerable brutality. In South Korea, about 100,000 people were killed in the late 1940s by security forces installed and directed by the United States. This was before the Korean War, which Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings describe as ‘in essence’ a phase—marked by massive outside intervention—in ‘a civil war fought between two domestic forces: a revolutionary nationalist movement, which had its roots in tough anti-colonial struggle, and a conservative movement tied to the status quo, especially to an unequal land system,’ restored to power under the US occupation. In Greece in the same years, hundreds of thousands were killed, tortured, imprisoned, or expelled in the course of a counter-insurgency operation, organized and directed by the United States, which restored traditional elites to power, including Nazi collaborators, and suppressed the peasant- and worker-based communist-led forces that had fought the Nazis. In the industrial societies, the same essential goals were realized, but by less violent means.”
         —Noam Chomsky, Optimism Over Despair: On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017), pp. 137-138.

ELECTRICITY — Availability
About 1.1 billion people in the world, roughly one in seven, still do not have access to electricity. This huge number of people without access to something as basic as electricity, even in this modern age, are mostly in Asia and Africa. Even economically-booming China only managed to provide “universal electrification” for the country in 2015. It should also be noted, however, that the term “universal electrification” is often essentially a lie in many countries. “In April [2018] India celebrated the electrification of its last village, yet about 240 million people remain without power and connections are often unreliable.” [Information from the Economist magazine, July 14, 2018, p. 13.]

ELECTRICITY and LIGHTING — Availability per Capita
This map is based on satellite photos of the light produced in various regions of the earth adjusted to show how much light (and by implication how much electricity and economic development in general) is produced per capita in different countries and areas. It is thus one indication of the relative wealth and development in some countries and areas compared to the relative poverty and under-development in other areas, and an indication of the overall gross inequality of wealth and modern amenities in the world today. (Of course some large areas like Greenland show up as “highly developed per capita” only because the population is so extremely sparse there.)

“Satellite photos of Earth’s artificial lights at night form a luminescent landscape. But researcher Chris Elvidge of NOAA and colleagues from the University of Colorado and the University of Denver realized that they could also illuminate something much darker: the magnitude of human poverty. By comparing the amount of light in a particular area and its known population, they realized that they could infer the percentage of people who are able to afford electricity and the level of government spending on infrastructure development. This allowed them to extrapolate levels of human development—a measure of well-being that includes such factors as income, life expectancy and literacy.
        “Their Night Light Development Index (NLDI) uses a composite of cloudless night images taken by Air Force satellites. They found that the NLDI (see map) measured human development with uncanny accuracy. The results closely correlated with conventional indices and in some cases even surpassed them. ‘The NLDI helps us get at the spatial patterns that you can’t see with traditional economic indices,’ Elvidge says. ‘For instance, most nations report their GDP at the country or province level, but the NLDI can reveal subregional patterns, down to the one-kilometer scale.’ The index also provides information on some countries, mostly in Northern Africa and the Middle East, for which reliable economic data are simply unavailable.” —Joseph Stromberg,
Smithsonian magazine, March 2013, pp. 18-19.

One of the four known forces of nature. It acts between particles with electrical charges by means of the exchange of

The body of knowledge in physics which describes phenomena related to electricity and magnetism. On a theoretical level this has now been transformed into the quantum field theory known as quantum electrodynamics (QED).

One of the primary components of atoms and
matter in general. Electrons, and their specific structure and arrangement within cloud-shells around the nucleus of atoms, are responsible for the chemical properties of the elements.
        See also: WAVE FUNCTION

“There are whole walls in libraries covered by countless shelves which are bending under the books on electronics and quantum electrodynamics. But in none of those books will you find a proper definition of an electron, for the very good reason that we haven’t the foggiest idea what an electron ‘is’.” —Vincent Icke, The Force of Symmetry (1995), p. 300. [Icke seems to think that finding out what an electron “is” is impossible or even meaningless. However, one way we find out more about what things actually are is by finding out how they relate to other things, what their internal composition and structure is, and so forth. These are precisely the ways in which we have already deepened our knowledge of what molecules and atoms are. —S.H.]

“The ‘essence’ of things, or ‘substance’, is also relative; it expresses only the degree of profundity of man’s knowledge of objects; and while yesterday the profundity of this knowledge did not go beyond the atom, and today does not go beyond the electron and ether, dialectical materialism insists on the temporary, relative, approximate character of all these milestones in the knowledge of nature gained by the progressing science of man. The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite, but it infinitely exists. And it is this sole categorical, this sole unconditional recognition of nature’s existence outside the mind and perception of man that distinguishes dialectical materialism from relativist agnosticism and idealism.” —Lenin, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” (1908), LCW 14:262.

“Materialists were [once] not aware of scientific knowledge of material structures, such as electron theory which demolished the erroneous theory of the elimination of matter and which clearly bears out the correctness of the materialism of dialectical materialism. Through the discoveries of modern natural science, such as the discovery of electron theory, certain material properties which appeared in old materialist concepts (weight, hardness, impermeability, inertia, etc.) were shown to exist only in certain material forms and not in others. Facts like these eradicated the one-sideness and narrowness of old materialism’s approach to material concepts and nicely demonstrated the correctness of [dialectical] materialism’s recognition of the world.” —Mao, “Lecture Notes on Dialectical Materialism” (1937), in Nick Knight, ed., Mao Zedong on Dialectical Materialism (1990), p. 102.

“We may ask ... what holds a negatively charged electron together (since [unlike the nucleus of the atom] it has no nuclear forces [to overpower repulsive electrical forces]). If an electron is all made of one kind of substance, each part should repel the other parts. Why, then, doesn’t it fly apart? But does the electron have ‘parts’? Perhaps we should say that the electron is just a point and that electrical forces only act between different point charges, so that the electron does not act upon itself. Perhaps. All we can say is that the question of what holds the electron together has produced many difficulties in the attempts to form a complete theory of electromagnetism. The question has never been answered.” —Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winning physicist, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 2, (Addison-Wesley, 1964), p. 1-2.
         [The notion that an electron (or any other physical particle) may “only be a point” is actually ridiculous, as Feynman may be hinting here. It is an attempt to reduce a part of reality to a mathematical abstraction, and hence is a form of philosophical idealism. (See also my essay: “The Impossibility of Infinitely Small Particles” (1989) at: https://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/infinitely_small.htm ) In any case, the more fundamental point here is Lenin’s: There are still a great many important things we do not at all understand about even just this one basic component of matter, the electron. —S.H.]

ELEMENT   (Chemistry)
One of the 100+ basic types of
atoms, including such elements as hydrogen, carbon, sulfur, iron, gold, etc. The chart at the right shows all the elements which have been discovered (as of 2012) in their familiar arrangement in the Periodic Table, along with their chemical symbol (one or two letters) and their atomic number (the number of protons each atom of that element has in its nucleus). The elements in white boxes were known in ancient times; those in green boxes were identified prior to 1870 (and were thus part of Dmitri Mendeleyev’s first Periodic Table); those elements in yellow boxes were discovered between 1870 and 1927; and the elements in blue boxes were discovered after 1927. [Chart from W. T. Bridgman, “The Cosmos in Your Pocket: How Cosmological Science Became Earth Technology - I”, Jan. 6, 2012, p. 9.]

        1. A particle in physics which is definitely not made up of other, smaller particles and/or which therefore definitely has no internal structure. It is not known if any such elementary or “fundamental” particles in this sense actually exist.
        Atoms were once defined as particles which were fundamental (in the sense that they could not be cut into pieces). But much later it was learned that atoms are composed of
protons, neutrons and electrons, which were then all assumed to be elementary particles. More recently it was found that protons and neutrons, at least, are themselves composite particles, each constructed of three quarks. The further advance of physics, especially when using more and more powerful cyclotrons and other pieces of advanced equipment, has repeatedly shown that what were once considered to be elementary particles are actually composites. This has led many people to wonder if truly elementary or fundamental particles exist at all! (Hence the way the term “elementary particle” is now defined in physics in the second sense below.)
        Dialectics would seem to strongly suggest that no truly elementary particles can exist, and that there are internal opposing forces within everything. However, it is also well to remember Engels’s comment that the laws of dialectics are merely important generalizations derived from our overall investigation of the world. These dialectical laws, including the fundamental law of contradiction, do appropriately guide our thinking, but they do not absolutely dictate the way nature always has to be.
        2. [As it is now more cautiously used in particle physics:] A particle whose substructure is unknown, and thus one which is so far not known to be composed of other particles. At the present time the “elementary” particles in this sense include the fundamental fermions or “matter and anti-matter particles” (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons), and the fundamental bosons or “force particles” (gauge bosons including the photon and gluon, and the Higgs boson). A particle containing two or more elementary particles is a composite particle.

A variety of
naïve materialism which claims that, no matter what people suppose, all mental states and properties are actually nonexistent, and that all talk of mental states and the mind should be eliminated entirely.
        See also: IDENTITY THEORY,   INSTRUMENTALISM [1st sense]

The “elite theory”, or “elites theory”, is the bourgeois sociological doctrine that the state, particular governments, and the political world in general, should be analyzed in terms of elites, or the powerful people who run the world versus those who they govern. This theory was consciously developed, and is most often consciously still promoted, in opposition to the Marxist analysis of society in terms of socioeconomic
classes, and the actual dominance and rule in class society of one or another of these social classes over all the others. Bourgeois sociologists have not been able to deny that some people in society are in a powerful privileged position which allows them to rule the others. So they are all the more concerned to at least hide the fact that this ruling group of people is the capitalist class and their chosen representatives. Thus these bourgeois ideologists are willing to talk about “ruling elites”, but virtually never the ruling capitalist class.
        The theory of “elites” was developed at around the beginning of the 20th century in Italy by Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto. Mosca wrote a book called The Ruling Class in 1896 (English translation 1939) in which he championed this theory. He was careful to define what he meant by “class” in elite power and organizational terms, as opposed to economic terms of the relationship of differing groups of people to the means of production. He did talk about the rulers and the ruled, and recognized that the ruling class was a rather stable privileged group which had both wealth and power, which he attributed primarily to their much better organization. Mosca viewed liberal democracy as basically a sham, which it in fact is. Mosca is therefore both the founding figure and a transitional figure in the development of the theory of “elites” away from Marxism.
        Although Mosca developed this basic “elites” theory of how a privileged powerful few rule the many, it was the bourgeois economist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto who apparently first used the precise term “elites” in a huge 1916 book on sociology (translated into English in 1935). Pareto switched the explanation for how elites are able to rule from their superior organization to various psychological factors. After World War II, liberal bourgeois sociology and “political science” around the world quickly adopted the concept of “elites” as the basis of their thinking about society. Strangely, they nearly always fail to draw Mosca’s own conclusion that this clearly shows that liberal bourgeois democracy is a fraud! One prominent bourgeois sociologist in the US who promoted the adoption of the theory of “elites” was C. Wright Mills, with his book The Power Elite (1956).
        While bourgeois ideologists cannot deny that powerful groups of people run society in their own interests, this admission actually serves the interests of the ruling capitalists in one important way. They argue that this rule by “elites” is inevitable in every society, and that no social revolution will ever be able to institute genuine rule by the people. The message to the working class is, “So why even try?!”
        We Marxists should not only cringe when we hear the word “elites” but also clearly recognize that the speaker is looking at society from a bourgeois perspective which rejects any Marxist class analysis. People who talk in terms of “elites” are distorting social reality, and—consciously or not—hiding the actual dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index