The focus of recent reviewers has been on David Rothkopf's book:

"Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making". [AI]

For Will Hutton, "Superclass" reveals in more detail the world of Jeff Faux's "Global Investor Class" :

... what matters most for these products of globalisation ... is time. They cannot afford, nor wish, to spend valuable hours in airport queues or planes held up by traffic control. The Gulfstream is the indispensable aid to moving around the world effortlessly and that movement, and the global access and influence that comes with it, is one of the characteristics of the members of the superclass.

Rothkopf counts 6,000 of them - CEOs of major corporations, partners in hedge fund and private equity companies, national and religious leaders, a sprinkling of global public intellectuals, military leaders and cultural figures.

They control oil, money, intellectual property, technology and the media. Rupert Murdoch is a member, so is Edward Johnson who runs Fidelity Investments, the world's largest mutual fund, as is Lakshmi Mittal who owns the world's largest steel company.

The superclass is overwhelmingly a private affair and most of its members go to extraordinary lengths to keep out of the limelight. Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, aborted the purchase of a $41m, 10-acre estate on Long Island when the news got out he was the buyer; he wanted his address to be anonymous.

But for all their privacy, they are enormously interconnected. A third went to just 20 universities. The directors of the world's top five companies sit on the boards of another 147 leading companies. It is not just that they can pick up the phone to each other, they have ready access to government, partly because of their power and partly because they know the people personally. Goldman Sachs is the quintessential example. Of Blankfein's four predecessors, two have been secretaries of the US Treasury (Hank Paulson and Bob Rubin), two were head of the US National Economic Council (Rubin and Steve Friedman) and one is the governor of New Jersey (Joe Corzine) Another alumnus, Robert Zoellick, is head of the World Bank. Gordon Brown has been careful to surround himself with former employees of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff, now advises Morgan Stanley. And so it goes on. ...

The anonymity is understandable, as is the coyness of politicians in sharing the truth with their increasingly powerless electorate that it is the 6,000, not the voters, who call the shots:

The financial dimension is key. The superclass can only make the scale of money it does because of its capacity to do what it will with cash - borrow it, leverage it, move it across borders, take over companies with it and shelter it from taxation.

Rothkopf says there were 21 financial institutions in 2007 managing assets of at least $1 trillion each and that the top 50 have assets in excess of $48.5 trillion. Their extraordinary freedoms are not natural, or economically efficient, as is now obvious post the credit crunch.

They are the consequence of a 20-year-long lobbying campaign to win finance freedoms from national regulation and which are now used against governments to keep them in their place.

Brown and Alistair Darling are having urgent discussions, for example, to reshape Britain's corporate tax laws as companies start to move to Ireland to pay less taxation, a classic way the superclass exercises its power (and a classic government response in giving way) ...

As Will Hutton points, if the hoi polloi ever realised the details ... but it's the function of politicians - like John Hutton - to smooth the way for our 6,000 very shy rulers:

... there will be popular outrage and a political response.

For the moment, though, it seems that a spell has been cast over the political process, at least in Britain.

The two frontbenches outdo each other in their anxiety to appease the superclass; Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform John Hutton spoke for both main political parties when he insisted we should praise great wealth. [JH]

Observer 04 May 2008

Of more interest, I believe, is David Rothkopf's earlier essay which outlines in some detail his views as to the beneficial nature of American globalist hegemony:

The impact of globalization on culture and the impact of culture on globalization merit discussion. The homogenizing influences of globalization that are most often condemned by the new nationalists and by cultural romanticists are actually positive; globalization promotes integration and the removal not only of cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture. Globalization is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it.

Hence New Labour's obsession with "social cohesion": it's not into rebuilding 'society', it's part of the process of softening up the natives, many of whom are ill-at-ease with the current levels of migration.

Mr Rothkopf has a unique take on culture and 'progress':

... the decline of cultural distinctions may be a measure of the progress of civilization, a tangible sign of enhanced communications and understanding.

Successful multicultural societies, be they nations, federations, or other conglomerations of closely interrelated states, discern those aspects of culture that do not threaten union, stability, or prosperity (such as food, holidays, rituals, and music) and allow them to flourish.

But they counteract or eradicate the more subversive elements of culture (exclusionary aspects of religion, language, and political/ideological beliefs).

History shows that bridging cultural gaps successfully and serving as a home to diverse peoples requires certain social structures, laws, and institutions that transcend culture. Furthermore, the history of a number of ongoing experiments in multiculturalism, such as in the European Union, India, South Africa, and the United States, suggests that workable, if not perfected, integrative models exist.

Each is built on the idea that tolerance is crucial to social well-being, and each at times has been threatened by both intolerance and a heightened emphasis on cultural distinctions. The greater public good warrants eliminating those cultural characteristics that promote conflict or prevent harmony, even as less-divisive, more personally observed cultural distinctions are celebrated and preserved.

And, you've probably guessed it: there's only one culture that's fit-for-purpose:

It is in the general interest of the United States to encourage the development of a world in which the fault lines separating nations are bridged by shared interests.

And it is in the economic and political interests of the United States to ensure that if the world is moving toward a common language, it be English; that if the world is moving toward common telecommunications, safety, and quality standards, they be American; that if the world is becoming linked by television, radio, and music, the programming be American; and that if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are comfortable. ...

Many observers contend that it is distasteful to use the opportunities created by the global information revolution to promote American culture over others, but that kind of relativism is as dangerous as it is wrong.

American culture is fundamentally different from indigenous cultures in so many other locales.

American culture is an amalgam of influences and approaches from around the world. It is melded--consciously in many cases--into a social medium that allows individual freedoms and cultures to thrive.

Recognizing this, Americans should not shy away from doing that which is so clearly in their economic, political, and security interests-and so clearly in the interests of the world at large. The United States should not hesitate to promote its values. In an effort to be polite or politic, Americans should not deny the fact that of all the nations in the history of the world, theirs is the most just, the most tolerant, the most willing to constantly reassess and improve itself, and the best model for the future ...

mtholyoke.edu Foreign Policy, Number 107, Summer 1997, pp. 38-53