This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. We’ve already received support from 91 donors who are committed to our mission of fighting corruption and predatory practices, especially in the financial sector. We invite you to contribute via our donation page, where you’ll find options to donate through check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. You can learn more about the purpose of this fundraiser, what we’ve achieved in the past year, and our current goal of enhancing our IT infrastructure.
Yves here. Tom Neuburger’s summary of Stanley Dundee’s classification of pivotal groups in American politics offers a straightforward and coherent insight into why our political landscape is troubled and why the general electorate often feels powerless. This concept aligns well with another framework that has gained traction: political scientist Tom Ferguson’s “golden rule” theory, which posits that American politics has long been influenced by financial interests.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies
“Masters are the rulers. Minions corral the muppets. The heart of the struggle is to detach the minions from the masters and get them to serve the muppets.”
—Stanley Dundee
“Only the destitute are blameless.”
—John Dominic Crossan’s rendition of “Blessed are the poor…”
Following Robert Benchley’s insight, I advocate for a simplified three-part perspective of the nation, where we evaluate it from a vertical viewpoint, providing a clearer understanding of our political dynamics.
Three Layers of American Political Parties
When people say, “the Democrats did X” or “the Republicans did Y”, it’s crucial to recognize that not all individuals within these parties hold the same beliefs or influence; indeed, most citizens do not belong to either party. They are often mere targets for marketing.
For clarity, let’s break down each party into three distinct categories, much like the structure observed in Gaul.
Layer 1 consists of the leaders, the decision-makers with real power within the parties: figures such as Schumer, Trump, Miller, Pelosi, and Obama. This group also includes lesser-known individuals like Mike Johnson, Mark Penn, Lindsey Graham, and the Podestas—those who influence the political landscape through wealth and connections. Collectively, they run their respective parties and ultimately guide the nation’s trajectory.
Layer 2 encompasses the flag-wavers, those who rally supporters and energize the base —including activists, consultants, media allies, organizers, and advocates. Ezra Klein is a representative of this layer, alongside many dedicated consultants and spokespeople who strive to amplify their candidates’ messages and galvanize public interest.
While some in this layer may work with high-profile candidates (like Jennifer Palmieri or Nicolle Wallace), many focus on grassroots efforts, working diligently to encourage turnout from communities across the nation.
This work, while noble, also depends significantly on the causes being advanced. Effective local organizing relies on uniting people under a common banner to inspire action.
Layer 3 represents the masses, the millions of voters and countless disillusioned individuals who exist largely as spectators in this political process. They serve as the target demographic for the efforts of the first two layers. If candidates can be equated to products, these individuals are the consumers.
In the United States, these masses are not strictly Democrats or Republicans, despite any self-identification. They lack real agency in the process of candidate selection; their input is often sidelined as parties choose their nominees, with rare exceptions. Primaries, contrary to popular belief, frequently have minimal impact on outcomes, as seen in the case of Sanders in 2020, where party elites selected against him, leading to his exit; Trump’s rise in 2016 remains a notable exception.
These three layers of American political parties reflect a hierarchy where true organization and influence mostly reside at the top. It’s essential to distinguish these roles when discussing “the Democrats,” as clarity about which layer is being referenced can significantly alter the conversation.
Masters, Minions, and Muppets
Now, let’s delve into Stanley Dundee’s framework, which mirrors this tripartite structure, particularly in economic terms. Ultimately, financial power determines influence in our society, a reality that has evolved over time.
Dundee’s classification of society includes:
Class in the USA: Masters, Minions, and Muppets
2020-07-29 v. 1
Masters, the 1% of the 1%, are the owners and rulers. Minions, or the professional-managerial class (PMC), manage the muppets (the precariat working class) on behalf of the masters. The core issue is to liberate the minions from the grip of the masters and have them assist the muppets instead. Achieving this requires muppet solidarity.
The American social structure can be condensed into three primary classes: at the peak is the ruling elite, comprising the top one percent. These are the true masters.
Next are those vying for advantages within the meritocratic system—known as the professional-managerial class (PMC), making up roughly 10-15% of the population. The PMC plays a pivotal role in sustaining the dominance of the masters, helping maintain societal divisions outside this elite. Hence, I refer to them as minions.
Finally, the bottom tier consists of everyone else, the precariat, making up about 85-90% of the population. Here’s the stark reality: if you’re not included in the decision-making, you become an expendable resource—hence, the term muppets.
Muppets serve as tools for exploitation by the minions on behalf of the masters, akin to natural resources. To keep the muppets compliant, a continuous campaign of divide-and-conquer is waged, primarily driven by the minions in the media. The muppets are subdivided further based on identity politics, spurring animosity and blame for their deteriorating conditions. The antidote to this is fostering muppet solidarity.
This classification is significant because minions have allegiance to masters, often benefiting from the scraps of power they’re allowed. Their position, while seemingly privileged, still places them in a precarious situation, especially when juxtaposed with the plight of the muppets.
Minions are far more than mere courtiers; they are the cogs that ensure the system operates smoothly. They manage finances, enforce regulations, deliver resources to the deserving, and discipline the uncooperative. They operate as professionals—from accountants to brokers—contributing significantly to maintaining the status quo. Without their efforts, the elite would lack the structure necessary for their reign, illustrating the critical role they play.
Notes for Future Discussion
Before we conclude, let’s examine a few additional points. (We will dive deeper into these later; this is already a lengthy exploration.)
The Ratios
Consider the relative sizes of these three groups:
- Masters: representing the top 1% of the 1%. Estimates suggest around 300,000 households, but in practical terms, decision-making power may reside in fewer than 1,000 individuals.
- Minions: the upper 10–15% who are generally financially secure, enjoying salaries that ensure a reasonable standard of living unless they overextend themselves. Their success is intrinsically linked to the prosperity of the masters; an economy that benefits the elite similarly aids them.
- Muppets: the remaining 85–90%. This group faces stagnation or decline in their economic conditions; they serve as resources to be utilized by the elite whenever needed.
This structure closely mirrors the social dynamics found in historical societies, such as ancient Rome.
Can the Management Class Switch Sides?
For a fundamental change to occur, the minions must ally themselves with the muppets. As Dundee aptly summarizes:
The crux of our struggle lies in releasing minions from the grasp of the masters, guiding them towards the service of the muppets. To achieve this, we require muppet solidarity.
Is such solidarity achievable? Dundee expresses doubt regarding this potentiality. Amber A’Lee Frost, quoted by him, reflects similar sentiments:
During a DSA event Q&A, a woman posed a question about how to respond if an alt-right individual expresses a desire to join the union. I remarked that if someone from the alt-right wants to join the union, that is a victory; it reflects the essence of a union as a collective struggle, rather than a social club for like-minded individuals. She didn’t seem convinced.
The divisions we see are cultivated and enforced by those in power, serving the interests of the masters. Yet, they also have roots in our human nature, as our ancestral history has been shaped by tribal affiliations, often leading to conflict and division.
“Only the Destitute are Blameless”
In closing, it’s crucial to also consider the role of the state in this scenario—its very existence shapes the dynamics at play.
Without strong, oppressive hierarchies, the feasibilities of exploitation diminish. Tribal societies, the frameworks we evolved within, lack these structured divisions that often treat individuals as mere commodities. Once established, governmental power seeks to perpetuate itself, serving the interests of the elite; only through disintegration or collapse can their control be challenged.
Furthermore, it’s worth observing that in this societal framework, everyone who is not at the bottom engages in some form of exploitation of those beneath them. This reality underscores John Dominic Crossan’s interpretation of the biblical adage:
“Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
(Sayings Gospel Q, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Luke)
As articulated:
“Only the destitute are blameless.”
Only those at the very bottom of the social structure do not contribute to the suffering of others. It’s a stark reality of life under centralized governance. Little wonder that challenging such structures can lead to severe repercussions, as exemplified by the fate of figures like Jesus.
