Economic dominance does not automatically translate into political rule

Evidence

The problem that is at issue in the research I am talking about can, I think, be broken down as follows. First: Is power always secondary to the economy? Are its finality and function always determined by the economy? Is power’s raison d’étre and purpose essentially to serve the economy? Is it designed to establish, solidify, perpetuate, and reproduce relations that are characteristic of the economy and essential to its workings? Second question: Is power modeled on the commodity? Is power something that can be possessed and acquired, that can be surrendered through a contract or by force, that can be alienated or recuperated, that circulates and fertilizes one region but avoids others? Or if we wish to analyze it, do we have to operate—on the contrary—with different instruments, even if power relations are deeply involved in and with economic relations, even if power relations and economic relations always constitute a sort of network or loop? If that is the case, the indissociability of the economy and politics is not a matter of functional subordination, nor of formal isomorphism. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 33 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Industrial growth subordinated political power to economic capacity; Power relations interlock with economics without being subordinate to it. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 33; Economic structures are necessary but not sufficient to explain political and ideological features (+8 more)

Related

• Power relations interlock with economics without being subordinate to it. (similarity 0.87)
• Industrial growth subordinated political power to economic capacity (similarity 0.84)
• Gramsci’s rejection of economic reductionism enables conditional- tense analysis of unstable power relations (similarity 0.83)
• Economic growth weakened political factors and made economic capacity the modern prerequisite of power (similarity 0.82)
• Economics is lateral to governing, not its internal rationality (similarity 0.82)
• Domination and relations of force replace juridical sovereignty as the lens on power (similarity 0.81)
• Political economy founded itself on the impossibility of an economic sovereign (similarity 0.81)
• Power analysis must shift from sovereignty to relations of domination. (similarity 0.80)
• Foucault saw economics as a discipline that forbids any sovereign viewpoint (similarity 0.80)
• Classical political economy presumed political sovereignty over economic activity. (similarity 0.80)
• Imperial domination cannot be applied mechanically to texts as their cause (similarity 0.79)
• Analyzing power requires abandoning the juridical-representation model entirely (similarity 0.79)
• Power requires an economy of true discourses to function. (similarity 0.78)
• Much societal power remains beyond the political system’s reach (similarity 0.78)
• Domination was always latent within political economy’s own categories (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Power relations interlock with economics without being subordinate to it. #expands (0.85) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 33
• Industrial growth subordinated political power to economic capacity #corroborates (0.80)
• Economic structures are necessary but not sufficient to explain political and ideological features #corroborates (0.80)
• Mode of production can assign dominance to politics or religion in different epochs #qualifies (0.75)