True: a little controversy never hurt anyone. Actually, quite a bit of controversy never hurt anyone either.

If we compare 21st century realities to the historical myths of an earlier time when politics were vital and the citizenry were engaged, then it seems like our wonderful democratic republic has fallen into deep decay. The hard core truth of the matter is that the political deck was stacked against the average citizen from the very beginning.

We began our national history (early 1600s) as elite-governed and elite-serving provinces of an empire in which the average person had little say. The black slaves, of course, had no say in anything, but the "white trash" who made up a good share of the population had no say either. (Good source: White Trash : The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg. 2016.).

After the Revolution of 1776, a local elite was either in place or arose. You know their names -- the familiar founding fathers. Over time, decade after decade of economic, geographical, political, and military expansion the elite's power waxed. It wasn't a conspiracy -- this is just the way most societies work: the many are governed or managed by the few.

I don't want to exaggerate, however. Being an American was a good deal for a lot of ordinary folk who came here from Europe (voluntarily) and prospered in agriculture and trade. Upward mobility was more available here than in Europe, for the most part. Suffrage was expanded (grudgingly) until by 1920 both ordinary men and women could vote. Blacks were openly and greatly hindered every step of the way after emancipation.

So, here we are, the product of the usually complicated history.

The Ruling Class composed of the very wealthy and their ranks of political and economic servants down the line pretty much run things for their own benefit and convenience. Their historical rule is echoed in the last lines of a popular hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy": which wert and which art, and ever more shall be.

Theoretically we could overthrow the ruling class and establish an economic democracy. People have tried hard to float this idea. Damned if I know how to do it.

The Ruling Class composed of the very wealthy and their ranks of political and economic servants down the line pretty much run things for their own benefit and convenience. — Bitter Crank

One basic problem that this wealthy elite doesn't think it has any role, any responsibilities to the people. As if they are just rich because of their own awesomeness.

I'll get in touch with my inner Socrates. What is an upper class, how can we define it? An upper class isn't simply people with lots of power...

What kind of political system does the U.S. actually have? — Enrique

Even an absolute monarch has to take public opinion seriously, so every human government is democratic to some extent.

What supposed to be different about the US is that there's no caste system. Should you decide to pay attention to politics, you shouldn't find the way blocked by your status in society.

Another problem is the assumption that anyone with influence is only concerned about their own selfish needs.

Power corrupts, but everyone with power is corrupt.

Old Ben Franklin said we had a republic, if we can keep it. Turns out we can't. Nor does it seem we want one. We want to eat well and get laid, and if that's provided for, we're content with any form of government.

Yet not always and in every country has the ruling elite been corrupt and looking only at it's self interest.

Just look at the cabal of freemasons who rose up against their King and founded United States. Many times when nation states have been formed, the economic, political and cultural elite has been very active in the whole project, which has been very crucial in getting the masses of people to join in and for the whole endeavor to be successful.

For example something like the Nordic style welfare state has emerged in Nordic countries thanks to the active support of the elites. It's not only because of the socialists and especially not because of the communists dreaming of a revolution and waiting for capitalism to collapse, it's because the project had universal support.

Yet not always and in every country has the ruling elite been corrupt and looking only at it's self interest.

Just look at the cabal of freemasons who rose up against their King and founded United States. Many times when nation states have been formed, the economic, political and cultural elite has been very active in the whole project, which has been very crucial in getting the masses of people to join in and for the whole endeavor to be successful.

For example something like the Nordic style welfare state has emerged in Nordic countries thanks to the active support of the elites. It's not only because of the socialists and especially not because of the communists dreaming of a revolution and waiting for capitalism to collapse, it's because the project had universal support

Is there any correlation between welfare states and monarchies? The universal support for such policies could be explained by a sense of unity brought about by monarchies.

Americans often pride themselves on not having a monarchy, but ironically the president is essentially an elected king with monarchical powers, both head of state and head of government. The head of state aspect could be the reason why campaigns are longer and rife with so much emotion.

Is there any correlation between welfare states and monarchies? The universal support for such policies could be explained by a sense of unity brought about by monarchies. — NOS4A2

But that wouldn't explain the geographic clustering, would it? There are other correlations concerning the nordic european countries: Protestantism. An early start on high literacy rates. Participation in government starting from the ground up.

But that wouldn't explain the geographic clustering, would it? There are other correlations concerning the nordic european countries: Protestantism. An early start on high literacy rates. Participation in government starting from the ground up.

Not just the Nordic welfare system, but welfare states in general. I’m thinking also Canada, Japan, Australia, the UK.

Common sense tells us that you have to protect the vulnerable or everyone is vulnerable. But when protecting the vulnerable would significantly increase your own vulnerability, we get not merely leadership but a class set apart from the interests of the majority. I agree that universal need transcends class distinctions, and if the upper class isn't going to undermine its position by attempting to satisfy these universal needs, it can be a positive influence, as can anyone.

Not just the Nordic welfare system, but welfare states in general. I’m thinking also Canada, Japan, Australia, the UK. — NOS4A2

Well, there's Germany, France and Italy, as well. Interestingly enough, this made me realize that republics don't actually make up the vast majority of industrial countries.

As and note this is quite universal. I would add that Japan, South Korea and Singapore etc.

For example, the map showing universal health care (free & universal, free partly, no universal):

Free and universal health care is the typical way.

Elites can indeed share an agenda an objectives with the common people. Something like patriotism can be shared by the rich an poor, who usually don't share much in common.

The worst situation is where the elite fears the most it's own people. Then it doesn't invest in the country, but transfers it's wealth to secret bank accounts and invests abroad and gets a foreign passport ready to flee the country if the security system cannot keep things under control. It's a sad state in many countries.

One way to look at the subject is to consider the difficulties of being a civic servant within any of environments proposed.
What a job to have.

I'll get in touch with my inner Socrates. What is an upper class, how can we define it? An upper class isn't simply people with lots of power... — Enrique

People with lots of power are called "the ruling class". They rule because they have lots of power.

There are 3 basic classes are divided up on the basis of how they get an income.

Working class (the majority) = people who depend on their ability to labor for a daily, weekly, or monthly wage. They are also called "wage slaves" because they are dependent on their wage.
Middle class (a minority) = people who are small to medium-sized entrepreneurs and highly trained professionals. They are an employing class.
Upper class (quite small minority) are people who are in a position to live off the income of investments. They may actively be involved in various companies, but generally they stay involved in order to maximize returns.
Ruling class = people with an extraordinary amount of wealth who are in a position to shape policy.

There are perhaps 2% of the population who is or could be in the ruling class. Working FOR the ruling class may give one some power and prestige, but those are only on loan.

Are politics no longer a part of public life? — Enrique

If, and only if the governed decide to roll over and play dead.

Working class, middle class and upper class political leaders have all existed, so what distinguishes these professional policy-makers from the ruling class? Is the demographic distribution of political decision-makers changing in some culturally transformative way so that a new class is coalescing? What level of continuity does the upper class have that would give it a sustained, multi-generational and cohesive agenda? Also, what is the mechanism of real control? It seems like you're suggesting money might be the mode of influence, but what is the relationship between financing and cultural organization?

what distinguishes these professional policy-makers from the ruling class? — Enrique

The ruling class is distinguished by the amount of power they have. In any nation, the ruling class has at least tacit support of the population, but they also have the explicit support of business, military, religion, and so on. The power of the ruling class is not imaginary, symbolic, or figurative. Their power is literal, but (at least in democracies) is not crudely displayed.

Who is in the American Ruling Class (ARC)? They who own the largest block of the economy--people like Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway, which includes businesses from Dairy Queen to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad system), major stockholders of corporations, the ultra rich who, like Bill Gates have huge stakes in major corporations, and so on. The boards of directors of corporations -- everything from Wells Fargo, Consolidated Edison, Proctor & Gamble, General Motors, etc. (They are on these boards because they hold a large stake in the corporations.). The top management of the military; the heads of central government agencies like Treasury, State Department, Interior, Defense, etc. How many people? Certainly less than 1,000,000 -- or about 1/3 of 1%, counting those at the tip.

What level of continuity does the upper class have that would give it a sustained, multi-generational and cohesive agenda? — Enrique

G. William Domhoff has analyzed the ruling class. Domhoff (and other authors) show how ruling class families have been, are, and (in all likelihood) will continue to be very deliberate about maintaining multigenerational class continuity. Who marries whom? No matter how hot he or she might be, the private's son or daughter will almost certainly NOT marry the 5-star general's child. Similarly, the lowly teller is not going to marry the son of the chair of Morgan Chase Bank. Not going to happen. Money and power marry money and power.

Where do the children go to school? Summer camp? Youth clubs? College? The children of the rich and powerful do not attend public schools, or run of the mill private schools, either. They attend elite schools from the cradle through whatever terminal degree they earn (at Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, etc.). At these elite institutions they learn which class they belong to, what its interests are, and (eventually) how to keep things that way.

Most people do not mix with the ruling class because the ruling class is an exclusive club.

Here is a web site for Who Rules America -- G. William Domhoff's research: Well worth checking out.

what is the mechanism of real control? It seems like you're suggesting money might be the mode of influence, but what is the relationship between financing and cultural organization? — Enrique

In short, it's the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules.

"Cultural organization" or what Marx called the reproduction of society, takes money. Some cultural organizations, like public schools, are broadly financed from local taxes. Other institutions, like elite universities, cultivate donor relationships with the upper class of people who have lots of money. Harvard's $40 billion endowment wasn't accumulated by begging on Boston Commons with tin cups. They gathered their endowment by the truck load.

Across the country, major cultural organizations -- schools, orchestras, museums, theaters, and so forth are kept afloat by major gifts, and the major gifts definitely influence what the institutions will do. Whether orchestras play Bach or Philip Glass doesn't matter all that much, maybe, but what is taught in schools (K - post doctoral studies) does matter. Finding major funding for an new arts magazine would be a breeze compared to finding major funding for magazines featuring socialism, anarchism, trans issues, poor men's rights, and so on. You practically have to rob a bank to get money for these sorts of cultural projects. Take two very minor magazines which were really very interesting and lively and covered significant issues -- Processed World (dealt with temporary workers) and Diseased Pariah News (dealt with people who were HIV+ and suffering from AIDS). Both operated on a shoe string.

You can find a handy sampling of the ruling class by looking at a list of the Fortune 500 -- a listing of the 500 largest corporations in the United States--surprisingly published by Fortune Magazine. It isn't the workers at these companies, it's the top brass. Also, look for a listing of the 100, or 500, or 1000 -- whatever -- richest people in the United States.

Another stat: Less than two dozen people in the world hold more wealth than 1/3 of the world's population. When you have that much money, you can call a lot of shots.

Futility futility futility. Futility futility futility. lol

Who are you addressing here? and What are you trying to say?

I could try to think critically about the executive branch of irrationality, but maybe I should save myself the trouble. lol If the majority likes injustice, who am I to argue? These social arrangements no doubt have some grand function.

Americans often pride themselves on not having a monarchy, but ironically the president is essentially an elected king with monarchical powers, both head of state and head of government. The head of state aspect could be the reason why campaigns are longer and rife with so much emotion. — NOS4A2

What effective difference is there from a country like the UK where the head of state is powerless in practice, so only the head of government matters?

These social arrangements no doubt have some grand function. — Enrique

Well sure, like running the world, running the country. Ruling. Look, I disapprove of the ruling class and the Uber-rich. I am interested in how they are organized and how they operate -- the better to make up lists of whose property to seize, and who to send to political re-educate camps after the revolution.

What if atmospheric circulation suddenly changed, what if a supervolcano erupted, what good would your draconian revolutionary eras be to you then? lol

What good will your shallow pseudo-cynical blasé attitude do you in any case?

It does me so much good, you have no idea!

I'm an old (literally) practitioner of shallow, pseudo-cynical blasé attitudes, so I understand their pleasures and satisfactions. But I'm a little confused by your reaction to what I wrote. Your beginning post seemed in earnest. Then you switched.

What kind of political system does the U.S. actually have? — Enrique

Plutocracy in the guise of a republic with democratic traditions...

Your post on class privilege was really good, intellectuality that actually got a strong emotional reaction out of me, not always easy to do. Unfortunately emotion doesn't always translate well into conversational writing lol I'm being ironic because that's how I was feeling, its not a discredit to the quality of what you said at all.