Kingpin theory of power elites

Economics Political Theory
1

I enjoy power-elite analysis. I did some amateur research on the JFK assassination last weekend and have been piecing together all sorts of decade-spanning conspiracy theories for some time. These theories exist in a sort of “quantum superposition” since there is so little solid information and evidence to work with.

When dealing with such difficult problems, it’s helpful to use metaphors to keep things straight in your head. One such metaphor I’ve recently adopted I call “Kingpin theory.”

The Kingpin is a character in the Spiderman comics. He has no superpowers but he is Spiderman’s arch-nemesis, more powerful than all the other villains who do have superpowers. The Kingpin’s power comes from his mastery of human nature, his willingness and ability to manipulate people by threatening their loved ones and his uncanny ability to remain at least one step ahead of everyone else.

In the real world, there are villains and then there are Kingpins. Pablo Escobar was a villain. Hank Paulsen is a Kingpin.

Now, when Kingpin theory is applied to politics, an obvious problem arises. The public doesn’t like villains of any sort, Kingpin or otherwise. They want their leaders to be kissing babies and making absurd promises in stump speeches. So, the Kingpins have two options. The first option is to become a Twoface Kingpin (Twoface is a Batman villain, interesting in his own right). As the name implies, a Twoface Kingpin is like an inside-out Sour Patch Kid… sweet on the outside and sour on the inside. The other option is to become a Puppet Master or Corruptor.

Twoface Kingpins are relatively easy to identify. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the cornucopia of pre-20th century tyrants. Basically, any autocrat is a kind of Twoface Kingpin, though the more unmasked his power, the less of a Twoface he is (whether this is a virtue or not is highly debatable). Puppet Masters, on the other hand, are much harder to find. Robber Baron theory basically takes the working hypothesis that the richest of the rich (say, the top 0.5%) are the Puppet Masters who control everything. This might be a good first approximation but it lacks depth. People in positions of formal power, but of lesser means, wield significant, real power. Consider the Defense Secretary. He might be a millionaire, but his wealth is nothing compared to Bill Gates. Yet I have no doubt the Defense Secretary wields a hell of a lot more power than Bill Gates does.

What makes Puppet Masters more powerful than Twofaces is that they are not easily identifiable targets, like Twoface Kingpins. Puppet Masters hide behind the scenes, pulling strings.

The most powerful Kingpins of all, in my theory, are Godfathers. A Godfather is a patriarch of a wealthy and powerful family. A Godfather family might have many Kingpins within it. David Rockefeller is a Godfather. Evelyn de Rothschild is a Godfather.

The formal power structures of law, government and the market create power centers or Hilltops. The object of power elite analysis is to understand the visible events of the times in terms of a struggle between Kingpins for control of Hilltops. Hilltops are strategic positions of power within the social fabric. The Presidency is a Hilltop. The papacy is a Hilltop.

Twoface Kingpins seek to personally occupy Hilltops. They engage in “King of the Hill” struggles versus other Twoface Kingpins. This is a first-order approximation of an election campaign between two candidates for elected office or the power-politics involved in clawing one’s way up to the Papacy.

Puppet Masters sit behind the scenes pulling strings. A puppet-string is anything which acts as leverage to get someone to do what you want. Maybe it’s a tit-for-tat business deal, special legal privileges, access to natural resources, the threat of blackmail, whatever.

Godfathers are the most powerful Kingpins of all. For this reason, they rarely seek to occupy hilltops themselves. Rather, they usually act as Puppet Masters and delegate the role of occupying a hilltop to Lackeys or they act as a Corruptor and seek to buy those who already occupy hilltops by corrupting them. As an aside, old-fashioned kings during the era of absolute monarchy (say, Louis XIV) are examples of that rare breed, Twoface Godfathers. A Twoface Godfather can’t exist in the era of modern demagoguery, mass media and mass politics because as soon as a Godfather reveals himself to the public for what he is, it is a simple matter for other Kingpins to take him down through populism and class envy. Read about Nelson Rockefeller’s political career to see what happens when a Godfather tries to reveal himself.

Wealthy, powerful families with a long history are Dynasties. Dynasties have a proven track record of holding Hilltops and maintaining their power, through thick and thin. Prior to WWI, there were 22 monarchies. After WWI, there were nine and the Tudors were one of those monarchical families. The Tudors are a Dynasty (Elizabeth is the “Godfather”), the Rothschilds are a Dynasty, the Rockefellers are probably a Dynasty, the Kennedys tried and failed to become a Dynasty.

The ultimate unit of loyalty is blood relation, that is, the Family. The Family is the power-base of the Godfather and is what makes a Godfather so much more powerful than a mere Puppet Master. The Godfather not only pulls strings and gets Lackeys to do his bidding on his Hilltops, he can place his brothers, cousins, uncles and other blood relatives in positions of great trust. This permits the Godfather to force-multiply himself vis-a-vis other Puppet Masters. A Puppet Master without a Family can only really trust himself. While blood does betray blood from time to time (and more often when there is a struggle over the Patriarchy Hilltop), there are biological reasons that make the Family less likely to betray its own than for two friends or buddies to betray each other. Human biology dictates a greater degree of loyalty between people carrying common genes than between people who are not.

Basically, the Family can introduce the division of labor into the business of being a Kingpin. All other Kingpins have to self-produce all aspects of the Kingpin business. This is what makes Dynasties possible and this is why Dynasties are the tip-top pinnacle of power.

But Dynasties have competition: fraternal organizations or Brotherhoods. A Brotherhood is essentially a gang. Gangs use the primitive act of a blood ritual (often murder, like the Aryan Brotherhood’s “Blood-in, Blood-out”) to initiate new members. This initiation process is psychologically powerful and parasitically leverages pieces of human psychology that evolved long ago for surviving attacks by wild animals and foreign invaders. Once initiated, members of a Brotherhood can be extremely loyal. National militaries, secret societies, intelligence agencies, street gangs, crime rings, and so on are examples of Brotherhoods which typically command a high degree of loyalty from almost all their members. However, the command-post of a Brotherhood is itself a Hilltop and is, therefore, subject to King-of-the-Hill struggles between Kingpins for control. In the end, Brotherhoods can be extremely powerful but in a head-to-head match, a solid Dynasty will win every time.

I don’t really have a summary, this is about as far as I’ve thought this out.

2

Add some footnotes and this could be published in a journal.

I really enjoyed it. If you advance your theory in the future, please keep us posted!

3

Damn…

You were really sitting down and thinking this thing through.

4

I’ve thought of an interesting and more theoretical definition of a power elite and I just wanted to see if you would approve of it.

A power elite is a non-isolable, and perfectly inelastic factor of production for the production of some policy (or whatever). That is to say a power elite is something absolutely necessary to the making of policies and without the power elite, such policies would never come into being. So I guess I’m trying to define it praxeologically.

5

bumping, since I think this thread is too important to die.

6

You’ll have to explain “non-isolable” to me, I’m not familiar with that term.

As far as applying the idea of human action to Kingpin theory, it’s fairly simple - Kingpins are just individuals who use “any means necessary” to accomplish their ends (which are, like everyone else’s, the satisfaction of their wants) and have been lucky enough to have had success. Godfathers are a little different from your average Kingpin, IMO, in that they seek not only their own ends but also the ends of The Family*. Dynasties are Families which have had a succession of strong Godfathers who cemented the Family name by remaining loyal to the Family’s interests rather than defecting and acting solely in their own interest.

But we cannot apply catallactics to Kingpin theory since it often involves coerced exchanges. The choices facing someone who has a “deal they cannot refuse” in front of them are much different than the choices facing an individual who is acting in the absence of coercion. “Your money or your life” is much different than “your money for this car.” For this reason, Kingpins or power-elites generally cannot be described as factors of production. They are redistributionists, not producer-consumers (at least, not solely producer-consumers… some Kingpins are involved in legitimate business as well as villainy).

Clayton -

*There’s a biological reason for why Godfathers should exist, in the first place. Specifically, by acting in the interests of their extended family, they are propagating their own genes more effectively. Our ancestors who acted not only in their own interests but also in the interests of their genetic relatives were more successful than our “egoist” ancestors at propagating their genes.

7

I believe non-isolable means that if you have a factor of production, you can’t differentiate the value added to the output by that factor from the value added by any other factor since it is necessary either that all of those factors need to be employed together at certain proportions or because that factor is in fact, absolutely necessary for the output’s value (like the steering wheel of a car). A factor is isolable if it’s value to the making of output can be known aside from the operation of other productive factors. So if I’m a guy (perhaps an aspiring dictator) who comes to the Godfather to ask a favor, that Godfather who is especially powerful is the one without whom, I could not receive my favor -that is, the Godfather who exists as a non-isolable factor in the production of the output I value.

so I’m saying that the isolability of a person or persons vis-a-vis a conspiracy to do something is the standard to judge their power in the conspiracy and their power in history.

8

OK, I think I grasp some portion of what isolability is about (can you post a link to an article or a reference to a text?), but I still think it’s a mistake to discuss villainy in the language of production. Villains don’t produce anything, they simple redistribute what already exists. They do not add value to anything. Kingpins are villains, by my definition, so I don’t think it makes sense to speak of them producing or adding value to anything.

This is not to say there does not exist voluntary exchange of villainous services. For example, a Kingpin might hire a contract killer to assassinate someone… there is some “going price” for “wet work” depending on the nature of the job and this “going price” is set by whatever market there is for contract killing (which, I assume, is a pretty thin market). But I don’t think this is really what you have in view, you’re talking about the “value added” to the goods or services which a Kingpin produces for others (other villains?)… and that’s where I think you’re making the mistake. Kingpins don’t produce anything, they just redistribute (to themselves, as much as possible).

Clayton -

9

@fakename: I think this sentence, “All other Kingpins have to self-produce all aspects of the Kingpin business” in my OP might be related to what your’e talking about and the sentence is confusing. Villains cannot ordinarily enjoy the benefits of the division of labor because what they do is illegal. You can’t exactly advertise on Craigslist for a getaway driver. So, villains have the difficult task of producing most or all of their own capital equipment. If you want to blow up a very large building, for example, you’re probably going to have to cook up the explosives yourself. Why? Because bombing buildings is illegal (even if it were legal to purchase the explosives, you would likely be better off cooking up your own since you are less likely to attract suspicion buying raw chemicals which have many uses than buying finished explosives which are only used for a few things beside their martial applications). The need to hide evidence, conceal actions and identities, and so on, forces villains to have to self-produce. The alternative is to exchange with other villains but this is an act of trust… once you trade with someone, that someone can snitch on you. Or, they can blackmail you with the threat of snitching on you. And so on. Blood relations add a fiber of loyalty into these exchanges and permit the division of labor with less fear of defection and betrayal. The possibility of defection is certainly not zero (family members do rat each other out) but it’s a lot less likely someone’s brother will turn them in than that their buddy will turn them in.

Clayton -