"Elitism" in class context

[jake williams]

I'm putting this in OI because pusher raised the point and I want him(?) to be able to participate.

The concept of "elitism" has become a pretty solid Republican tactic - the notion that "liberals" or even "the Left" is something that comes from wealthy, educated people in New York and Boston and Hollywood and so on. This view of the world says, look, my opponent doesn't live in your world, he's an "elite", he's your boss, he went to schools you couldn't, he lives in a city you can't afford to, he doesn't share your values, but I do.

It's a transparent fraud - Republicans, the actual leadership of their party and not occasional figures like Palin - went to the same schools, are more often your boss than Democrats, don't share your values, and only don't live in the city because they're less comfortable with black people. But it's very difficult to counter. A large segment of the Republican based are oppressed and feel the lack of power they possess and they notice the inequality, and the Republicans are just better at exploiting this. The people who advocate things like gay rights are economically and socially advantaged, and it's very easy to then say, look, I'm on your side, I'm not a "liberal", the whole "limosine liberal" thing, the Republicans fight elections now on the basis that they are the allies of the working class against elitist control.

[RGacky3]

I agree, but the reaon they can use that concept, is because a lot of leftist ARE elitist, considering msot of America to be "dumb rednecks," and then they wonder why workers don't want to listen to them. Then they give republicans something to exploit.

Republicans who obivously hurt the working class and dont' give a crap about them, can pretend to be on their side simply because the pretend to have respect for them, something some liberals don't even try.

[JimmyJazz]

I wrote this back in May when my views were more reformist-socialist, but it seems relevant:


People need to learn the fucking difference between elites and experts. One is illegitimate authority, one is legitimate, and most people in the heartland seemingly have it ass-backwards as to which is which.

The insane thing is that you can be super rich (elite) without being good at anything, but you cannot fake a PhD (expert), yet most dumb people will call the PhD an elitist and the super rich guy a hardworking everyman who struck it big.

If GWB wasn't president we wouldn't know his record as well as we do, and we wouldn't know that he screwed up every venture he every touched only to be bailed out by dad, we would just look at him and say "wow, what a successful businessman, CEO of an oil company in his 30's!" Yet some of the same people who admire businessmen and the "meritocracy" and "efficiency" of the private sector will turn around and tell you that Mr. Scientist is all wrong about the age of the earth, evolution, or whatever else, and that their minister knows better from studying ancient texts, and that having a degree doesn't prove anything and is just an appeal to authority.

I think resentment of elites is a natural thing, but it's incredible the way the elites themselves in America have managed to shape the form that this resentment takes. The Pennsylvania bittergate thing is just the latest example.

If it was up to me society would be handed over to the experts--that just makes sense. It’s not like the professional politicians in our government actually have any kind of expert knowledge about the stuff they are voting on. But I guess Americans are too ruggedly individualistic for that kind of logic. Just as the rhetoric of extreme individualism is used in the Army’s recruiting campaign “An Army of One”, only to bring more young men into what is quite possibly the most hierarchical, anti-individualist institution in the country, so it is used to turn voters against the very politicians who promise to help them most.

[pusher robot]

I don't think Americans have a problem distinguishing between elitists and experts. They regularly seek the advice of experts and consider what they have to say. What they are is anti-authoritarian. An "elite," in this context, is someone who claims by the right of their wealth, fame, or education to exert authority and tell people what to do. Americans will gladly go to the doctor and seek his advice, but they will fight practically to the death a doctor that tries to force his advice onto them. So it is with any intellectual.

[JimmyJazz]

An "elite," in this context, is someone who claims by the right of their wealth...to exert authority and tell people what to do.

Right, so a capitalist. And I'm saying that Americans have an overall positive impression of capitalists, despite the fact that they are elites.

[Bud Struggle]

Right, so a capitalist. And I'm saying that Americans have an overall positive impression of capitalists, despite the fact that they are elites.

You miss the point about Capitalists--they are the everyman, you and me, with just a bit more hard work and a bit more luck. All Americans are Capitalists.

[RGacky3]

You miss the point about Capitalists--they are the everyman, you and me, with just a bit more hard work and a bit more luck. All Americans are Capitalists.

And a bit more stepping on other people. Capitalists are elites in the real sense, in that they hold actual power, intelectuals are just guys that think they know more than everyone else (Which sometimes they do), some intelectuals, (Noam Chomsky for example), manage to write intelectual books without being condesending or elitist sounding, his attitude is (as far as I can tell from reading his books) he's not smarter than anyone else, the only advantage he has is access and the time to look up a lot of information and data.

The real elite are the ones that wield the power. Unfortunately many Capitalists like to pretend that this are like what TomK says, they are just like you and me, and maybe they watch football and drink beer or whatever, but where it really counts, they are not, where it really counts is wealth, power, authority and control, and in those areas they are nothing like the common man.

Even a king can put on a show and pretend he's like everyone else, but where it counts he's not, its the same with Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

With all due respect---this is complete and utter crap--
And a bit more stepping on other people. Capitalists are elites in the real sense, in that they hold actual power, intelectuals are just guys that think they know more than everyone else (Which sometimes they do), some intelectuals, (Noam Chomsky for example), manage to write intelectual books without being condesending or elitist sounding, his attitude is (as far as I can tell from reading his books) he's not smarter than anyone else, the only advantage he has is access and the time to look up a lot of information and data. Wrong here--
Chomsky is a HELL of a lot smarter than I am and about 99.9% of the people in the World. I don't care how he "sounds" he's smarter than almost everyone else. He's an expert--but he's also a member of an intellectual elite. And he should be a member of that elite--he deserves it.


The real elite are the ones that wield the power. Unfortunately many Capitalists like to pretend that this are like what TomK says, they are just like you and me, and maybe they watch football and drink beer or whatever, but where it really counts, they are not, where it really counts is wealth, power, authority and control, and in those areas they are nothing like the common man. Nope, We're the common man--a bit more money and control over things--but no real difference. We aren't Lords or Kings. I got where I am by sitting in my kitchen discussing shit with my wife--"maybe we could do this--or that." Then going out and doing what we discussed. We didn't look for power or control over people--we followed the America Dream. We had an idea and we started it up in the garage and I went door to door selling out stuff and my wife kept the books and we did OK. No one gave us anything--though America did provide a fair playing field for us to work on. I and most of my successful friends got this way because we got up off our butts. Granted America is in an exhaulted position in the world so it's MUCH easier to do this sort of stuff here than in Bangladsh--but those are the breaks.


Even a king can put on a show and pretend he's like everyone else, but where it counts he's not, its the same with Capitalism.I never changed. I'm no king. Neither is anyone else I know. For you to suppose otherwise misses the point of the beauty of Capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Chomsky is a HELL of a lot smarter than I am and about 99.9% of the people in the World. I don't care how he "sounds" he's smarter than almost everyone else. He's an expert--but he's also a member of an intellectual elite. And he should be a member of that elite--he deserves it.

That may be the case, but he does'nt act elitist or write as if he's one, a middle school student could read his books.


Nope, We're the common man--a bit more money and control over things--but no real difference. We aren't Lords or Kings. I got where I am by sitting in my kitchen discussing shit with my wife--"maybe we could do this--or that." Then going out and doing what we discussed. We didn't look for power or control over people--we followed the America Dream. We had an idea and we started it up in the garage and I went door to door selling out stuff and my wife kept the books and we did OK. No one gave us anything--though America did provide a fair playing field for us to work on. I and most of my successful friends got this way because we got up off our butts. Granted America is in an exhaulted position in the world so it's MUCH easier to do this sort of stuff here than in Bangladsh--but those are the breaks.


America is no different than other countries when it comes to opportunities. I used to king example to make a point, and the more money (a lot more than a bit) and more control (a lot more than a bit) IS real difference, and Capitalists (big ones), make huge huge huge amounts more than workers nad have huge huge huge amounts more control over things.

Thats what makes a king a king, not his crown or his title, but ultimately, its his power, and control. In todays society power and control comes through wealth and corporations.

It does'nt matter if you changed or not, that does'nt matter, I don't care if you still go to the local dive bar, eat at dennies, buy second hand clothes, it does'nt matter, ultimately your place in society is higher, because you ahve more moeny, you control business and thus have more power.

At your level its not so extreme, but at the big Capitalits level its huge.

I'm talking power here, not attitude. THATS the real elite, the elite with power, regardless of how they view themselves.

[pusher robot]

Right, so a capitalist. And I'm saying that Americans have an overall positive impression of capitalists, despite the fact that they are elites.

No, wrong. Totally wrong, and your failure to understand this prevents you from understanding why the American proletariat is so un-revolutionary.

A capitalist has wealth, most likely. This is true. But the capitalist does not say to the worker, "You! Worker! I have money, thus I am smarter/luckier/better, therefore you should do what I say! Trust me!" That would be elitist. Rather, the capitalist says, "You! Worker! I have money, and if you do what I say, I will give you some! Take it or leave it!" This is not a demonstration of elitism because the proposed transaction never appeals to the worthiness of the capitalist to command, but rather to the self-interest of the worker who is free to choose.

Think of it this way - an elitist is someone who is offended when the "lesser people" ask of them, "what's in it for me?" Capitalists do not fit this definition.

Workers always know that if they really wanted to, they could tell their boss to go fuck himself and walk away from that relationship any time, and there's nothing his boss could do about it.

[pusher robot]

I'm talking power here, not attitude. THATS the real elite, the elite with power, regardless of how they view themselves.

I don't really disagree with you here, but that's a different kind of elitism than the OP was talking about. To a large degree, Americans don't mind the kind of elitism that you describe because it's largely meritocratic.

[JimmyJazz]

TomK - wtf? You've been on this site a long time, don't tell me you don't know the definition of a capitalist. I know you do, you've joked about being a communist "factory owner". So why you are saying "All Americans are Capitalists" is beyond me.

PusherRobot - everything you say stems from the typical Randian inability to meaningfully define "force", except in the perfectly circular way which says that everything a state uniquely does is force and everything a capitalist (or the capitalist class) uniquely does is non-force. You have no objective definition of "force" prior to your knowledge of the state and what it does, and your opposition to this, plus your knowledge of what the capitalist class does, and your support of this. Small wonder that you always get the results you want, and there is always a nearly perfect correspondence between your "objective application" of the no-force "principle" and the political positions of your Libertarian candidates. Also, I don't particularly care if you identify as a Randian for the purpose of this argument (although in general I would be curious...), because you are talking like one and that's all that matters atm.

[RGacky3]

Americans don't mind the kind of elitism that you describe because it's largely meritocratic.

Americans don't mind it because they don't know any thing different, its the same reason most people in the middle ages did'nt mind a monarchy, thats all they knew. Their main objections were, is this a nice monarch.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK - wtf? You've been on this site a long time, don't tell me you don't know the definition of a capitalist. I know you do, you've joked about being a communist "factory owner". So why you are saying "All Americans are Capitalists" is beyond me.


Well, technically they aren't all Capitalists--but to understand their mind set I refer you to this brilliant post by R_P_A_S:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/america-joe-plumber-t92811/index.html

The guy NAILS it.

[Rascolnikova]

That may be the case, but he does'nt act elitist or write as if he's one, a middle school student could read his books.

To clarify:

Chomsky's field is linguistics. I hope you will trust that a normal middle schooler could not follow his work in field. He engages in political and media analysis and writes on this as a form of activism, and his works there are particularly intended to be accessible.


Jimmyjazz, I'm not sure I concur with your assumption that experts are actually more competent to run things than everybody else. I think if the general populace were to be educated enough to keep the experts in check when they rampantly abuse the trust that's been placed in them, it would be a good system. . . but right now the general populace mostly wants to watch TV and buy things.

So, that needs to be fixed first.

[Bud Struggle]

To clarify:

Chomsky's field is linguistics. I hope you will trust that a normal middle schooler could not follow his work in field. He engages in political and media analysis and writes on this as a form of activism, and his works there are particularly intended to be accessible.


There's no doubt, his politics are quite on the level of a middle schooler. ;):lol:

[RGacky3]

I hope you will trust that a normal middle schooler could not follow his work in field. He engages in political and media analysis and writes on this as a form of activism, and his works there are particularly intended to be accessible.


I'm talking about his politics and social books. Not on linguistics.

[Rascolnikova]

There's no doubt, his politics are quite on the level of a middle schooler. ;):lol:

That certainly explains why you look up to him.
*hands tom his sippy cup*

[Rascolnikova]

I'm talking about his politics and social books. Not on linguistics.

Which, as I said, are intentionally accessible.

Personally I think Chomsky is very much the breed of expert we need more of. Besides being incredibly brilliant and dedicated, he retains respect for people who aren't, which is terribly important.

A PhD, like any other matter of academic grading, measures someone's ability and willingness to conform themselves to an external academic system. How much that entails competence, and in what, varies by the academic system. Chomsky's real claim to expertise in social and political issues is commonsense, intelligence, and decades of dedicated experience. There's a reason his opinions are more respected in academia than that of a fresh poli-sci PhD.

[RGacky3]

Besides being incredibly brilliant and dedicated, he retains respect for people who aren't, which is terribly important.


I wholeheartedly agree, the left needs more like that.

[Bud Struggle]

I wholeheartedly agree, the left needs more like that.

You could start with "another." :)

[Rascolnikova]

You could start with "another." :)

I'm working on it. ;)

I think Feynman qualified; he was all about making standard particle theory accessible to the lay reader, and I hear he did some fantastic work regarding alienation of workers (engineers) and management leading up to the challenger disaster. Howard Zinn is another obvious example. I would like to see this kind of scholarship in all fields.

In some ways, the left has far more potential for this than the right; placing a lower moral value on conformity has it's advantages. Also, where the right appeals to commonsense and the lowest common denominator (crude self-interest), the left has the advantage of being able to preach commonsense and ethical satisfaction.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm working on it. ;)

I think Feynman qualified; he was all about making standard particle theory accessible to the lay reader, and I hear he did some fantastic work regarding alienation of workers (engineers) and management leading up to the challenger disaster. Howard Zinn is another obvious example. I would like to see this kind of scholarship in all fields.

In some ways, the left has far more potential for this than the right; placing a lower moral value on conformity has it's advantages. Also, where the right appeals to commonsense and the lowest common denominator (crude self-interest), the left has the advantage of being able to preach commonsense and ethical satisfaction.

Nothing against Chomsky, but he's certainly not taken seriously on the lert as well as the right. He used his MIT creds and his world class work in linguistics to propel him into the political spotlight. You don't really think anyone would take any notice of him if he wasn't the MIT hot shot, do you? Nobody is interviewing about his thoughts on the election. He's doing his college/ex hippie circut and that's about it. And people like Zinn, are interesting, but then again not in the mainstream of anything.

Chomsky and his ilk aren't really the left at all, at least here in the US. They are the guys that are WAY over THERE. If you want to see what the real Left in America is thinking look at something like the Daily Kos--Obama all day, all the time. That's as far as these things go in America.

And the correct term for "crude self interest" is "economic self dertermination." It sounds better. ;)

[RGacky3]

Chomsky and his ilk aren't really the left at all, at least here in the US. They are the guys that are WAY over THERE. If you want to see what the real Left in America is thinking look at something like the Daily Kos--Obama all day, all the time. That's as far as these things go in America.

I would say Chomsky is pretty representative of the American radical left.

Also their books (Chomskys and Zinns) do sell quite well.

Also Chomsky is much more mainstream in europe, he's interviewed more and the such.

The reason he's not interviewed much in the US on mainstream news station, is not because of lack of popularity (believe me, look at the nobodies they DO interview), its for a much different reason.

[Hit The North]

There is enough empirical evidence (a look at the common social origins, schools, and universities, of those exerting power at the top of the political, economic and military institutions of America) to indulge the idea of the existence of a power elite in the U.S. This is well documented by the radical sociologist, C Wright-Mills in his 1956 study, The Power Elite. According to Mills the power elite have the following characteristics:


these people share a common world view, 1) the "military metaphysic"- a military definition of reality, possess 2) "class identity"- recognizing themselves separate and superior to the rest of society, have 3) interchangeability: i.e. the move within and between the three institutional structures and hold interlocking directorates 4) cooptation/socialization: of prospective new members is done based on how well they "clone" themselves socially after such elite. Further these elite in the "big three" institutional orders have an "uneasy" alliance based upon their "community of interests" driven by the military metaphysic, which has transformed the economy into a 'permanent war economy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_EliteWhether you buy into all of Mills argument (the permanent war economy, for instance), it remains a compelling description of American society. A good article (from a bourgeois source) assessing Mills thesis and updating it, can be found here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_power_elite_now

Incidentally, the political elite of the USA is particularly entrenched. One of the most amazing facts if Obama gets elected will not so much be his skin colour, but the fact that his ancestry cannot be traced back to the British Isles. Of the total of 43 US presidents so far, only three of them (Eisenhower and the two Roosevelts) cannot have their ancestry traced back to this small group of islands. When one considers the massive waves of immigration from other European countries and beyond which have gone to make the US population, this is an amazingly tenacious grip on power exerted by the British founding fathers.

Of course, all national elites are now more or less part of a global elite and the "uneasy alliance" Mills noted in the national scene is even more pronounced at the global level.

[Rascolnikova]

Nothing against Chomsky, but he's certainly not taken seriously on the lert as well as the right. He used his MIT creds and his world class work in linguistics to propel him into the political spotlight. You don't really think anyone would take any notice of him if he wasn't the MIT hot shot, do you? Nobody is interviewing about his thoughts on the election. He's doing his college/ex hippie circut and that's about it. And people like Zinn, are interesting, but then again not in the mainstream of anything.

It hadn't occurred to me till I started writing this how ironic it is. . . but--
Something my big brother always used to say to me was, when someone is saying something smart and sensible and you find no one will even argue with them, will even address what they're saying, it's a pretty good sign that you've stumbled on to truth. I would also lay money that while perhaps no one is asking him about it, Chomsky is telling someone what he thinks of the election.

You will notice that while his popularity, especially in the US, is limited, he's a noticed voice--and yet you don't see actual arguments against Chomsky. Arguably the reason he gets so little public exposure is that he is right.



Chomsky and his ilk aren't really the left at all, at least here in the US. They are the guys that are WAY over THERE. If you want to see what the real Left in America is thinking look at something like the Daily Kos--Obama all day, all the time. That's as far as these things go in America.Had it occurred to you that we are the real left, and they are the right-center?



And the correct term for "crude self interest" is "economic self dertermination." It sounds better. ;)I prefer precision over pr in this context.

Also, interesting post, BTB. :)

[Bud Struggle]

[quote]You will notice that while his popularity, especially in the US, is limited, he's a noticed voice--and yet you don't see actual arguments against Chomsky. Arguably the reason he gets so little public exposure is that he is right. Or maybe the reason her gets so little publicity is that he's reguarded as a "nut." On the other hand, is there a "right" (as in true) positionon political issues? I'm not so sure.


Had it occurred to you that we are the real left, and they are the right-center? On sure. That's what RevLeft is all about. It just that we don't have any (many) actual "real" lefties in the US. I dn't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing--not because of the Lefties, but because we also don't have many of the nut case Fascists either. American seems to be fat, dumb and happy right in the middle. :)


I prefer precision over pr in this context. Then you agree with my wording? :tt2: :lol:


Also, interesting post, BTB. :)Likewise!

[RGacky3]

Or maybe the reason her gets so little publicity is that he's reguarded as a "nut." On the other hand, is there a "right" (as in true) positionon political issues? I'm not so sure.

Well he's never been called out as such, not has any one acussed him of that or challenged his arguments. You know why? Because he's right. He cuts through the BS rhetoric and gets to the meat of things. It would be extreamly hard for the politica/media spectrum to challenge him because he has so much on them and they have nothing really on him (his writings).


It just that we don't have any (many) actual "real" lefties in the US. I dn't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing--not because of the Lefties, but because we also don't have many of the nut case Fascists either. American seems to be fat, dumb and happy right in the middle.

Thats so untrue, remember WTO riots in Seattle? Remember May 1st? Americas opposition to the Iraq war is phenominal compared to many other countries who's governments pull similar crap, and who have not as good propeganda systems. The left and workers movement in America has a very rich history and one that we can be very proud of.

We also have a LOT of nut cases on the right, LOTS AND LOTS of them, just look at some of McCAin supporters, zenophobics that would make the Nazis flinch. This idea that the United States is a moderate nation is rediculous. We have Bill Oreily and Hannity on Prime Time TV for gods sakes.

[Rascolnikova]

Or maybe the reason her gets so little publicity is that he's reguarded as a "nut." On the other hand, is there a "right" (as in true) positionon political issues? I'm not so sure.Depends entirely on what you mean by that. I believe that there are definitely better and worse positions, on a humanitarian level.


On sure. That's what RevLeft is all about. It just that we don't have any (many) actual "real" lefties in the US.Working on that too. :)

I'm sure you're aware that there's a lot of intense anti-leftist propaganda out there, right? You do remember that thing about the fifties, and then the cold war, when no one could afford to be openly leftist in this country?


I dn't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing--not because of the Lefties, but because we also don't have many of the nut case Fascists either. American seems to be fat, dumb and happy right in the middle. :)Really? (http://www.***************/forum/)


Then you agree with my wording? :tt2: :lol:Oh yes; I certainly agree that those words are often used to describe crude self-interest.

[Hit The North]

So there you have it. With Obama's election victory, America has now voted for only its fourth President who's family origins cannot be traced back to the British Isles (that's against 40 who can). What a triumph of democracy the American system is :laugh:

The question is, will the interests of the ruling elite in the USA be safe in Obama's hands? Given his time at the Business International Corporation and Harvard Law School, my feelings are that they will.