Proceeding from another thread, I have decided to leave with an open-ended question. In the thread, I identified power, well, actually subjugation, but let's substitute terms, being effectuated or, at least, attempted to be effectuated through the intelligentsia, which neither always has power or is negative, though always is when it involves subjugation, popular culture, which together, along with the historical legacy of various forms of social hierarchy, comprise of the cultural hegemony, which can be alleviated only in part by the two former sets of society in so far that they're somehow benefactors, the ruling class, which, I think, we all understand as the network of influence that controls the lion's share of wealth, an inherent inequality, though not always the most culpable malefactor, the network of influence that comprises of political power, i.e. our elected representatives, martial authority, legal authority, including the police force, extra-juridical authority in the form of "sovereign" power, extra-juridical authority in the form of clandestine control, often notably factional, and so on and so forth. I think it impossible to complete a full list, aside from that these various networks of influence are often either interrelated or in competition with one another. You'd also have groups that go between different sets, such as the intelligence community. The idea, though, I think, is that it's very complex and can't be easily reduced. When identifying some specific plight, however, I think that you could highlight particular sets so as to elicit a given machination. The machinations themselves, though, can also operate almost automatically. Antonio Hardt and Michael Negri just call all of this "Empire", which can only make sense within the context of foreign policy. What I'm suggesting is that we shouldn't call it anything. You should just be specific.