Beyond Elites: Why the Powerful Often Fight Each Other

• Powerful elites are not monolithic blocks but often divided by internal conflicts, fractures, and competing interests.
• Analyzing these internal fault lines is essential for identifying strategic weaknesses within ruling groups.
• Viewing elites as closed, static entities can hinder effective political struggle by normalizing their power as an immutable constant.

The Problem with Current Concepts

• Terms like "elite" or "power bloc" often imply a structural, functional unity that obscures reality.
• Recent literature on Spanish power structures, such as works by Nicolás Sesma, Andrés Villena, and Rafa Méndez, focuses heavily on continuity and stability.
• This "history from above" approach fails to explain how structural contradictions allow for system reproduction or failure over time.

Historical Examples of Elite Conflict

• England (17th Century): Robert Brenner demonstrated that the English bourgeoisie was split between pro-absolutist merchants and agrarian-commercial landowners. Their conflict paved the way for agrarian capitalism and parliamentarism.
• Chile (19th-20th Century): Maurice Zeitlin highlighted that Chile’s long history of parliamentary continuity actually contained internal civil wars between landowning aristocrats and emerging mining-industrial interests.
• These divisions were not merely side issues; they determined national development paths, such as reliance on foreign markets versus state-driven modernization.

Implications for Political Strategy

• Misidentifying ruling elites as unified blocks misleads political movements, particularly those seeking systemic change.
• Successful movements must diagnose specific weaknesses within these groups rather than assuming their power is absolute or unchanging.
• A finer analysis of intra-class conflict provides tools to exploit divisions, as seen in historical moments where elite factions aligned with different social groups to advance their objectives.