5 ms·

This was a very long article so it doesn't surprise me that most people are commenting on the 9.9% figure while missing the authors point. I've seen a similar p

This was a very long article so it doesn't surprise me that most people are commenting on the 9.9% figure while missing the authors point. I've seen a similar point made several times recently and it goes something like this: The "true elites" have constructed a social and economic system that syphons off the majority of wealth. The "wannabe elites" at the top of the remaining pile are actually complicit servants of the elite (who cares if it is 9%, 11% or whatever). These wannabes enjoy their privileges but realize their position is precarious. Their anxiety at losing this position makes them more eager servants to the elites and they become highly protective of their own positions. Maintaining wannabe elite status is more important than effecting societal change and it consumes all of their available resources and time. The people at the bottom of the system are always upset and spend most of their time fighting amongst themselves and scheming on how to get into the privileged wannabe group. They spend all of their resources and time just trying to survive. There is a constant threat that if this rabble becomes angry enough then they will violently revolt. The elites like to remind the wannabes that when the pitchforks come out then it will be for the wannabes, those soft/weak knowledge workers who are unable to fly to their second home in Europe. So, it is really in the wannabes best interest to quell the dissent. In this narrative, the alliance between the insanely rich and the dirt poor makes sense. The real elites let the educated wannabes know they have their finger on the button. They do so in subtle think pieces in the kind of magazines the rabble won't read. Don't forget, your comfortable lifestyle is predicated on serving the elites. If individually you rebel then you will lose your privileges. If en-masse you rebel then there will be a violent revolt directed at you. Good luck finding a way out of all of this is what the author leaves us with. The wannabes are the dupes in a con-game. We think we are in on the con and yet we also realize that if things go bad then we'll be the ones left holding the bag. We're being taught to accept an inherit complicity as a means to convince us to keep going along with it. You already knew everything there was to know before you read this article.

roywiggins 8y ago
This tripartite split (elite, bourgeois, poor) is a very old one. I am sure I read a paper in an undergrad poly-sci course that analyzed the fate of nations based on which two teamed up against the third. Elites+poor is a pretty dangerous combination because they end up catching civil society in the pincers.
- reggieband 8y ago
  The author did make the argument that revolutions that start from the middle are usually less violent and chaotic. I don't have the relevant education to know if that is true but I do know that I'd rather lead a revolution than be the victim of it. To be fair to the author, that is his ultimate point. It feels to me that the idea of sacrifice has become a secular heresy. Humility as well. If the middle class has any hope of allying with the lower class then those two traits will have to ascend from ashes. The real questions is: are we too far gone and is it too late?
  - doktrin 8y ago
    > If the middle class has any hope of allying with the lower class then those two traits will have to ascend from ashes. The real questions is: are we too far gone and is it too late? I'd honestly ask a slightly different question : how much longer will the lower and middle classes pose a realistic threat to the elites? To date, economic and social elites have always been at the theoretical mercy of the masses simply by virtue of vastly inferior numbers. We're not that far off from a day when - as a result of technological advances of various kinds - a small minority could feasibly defend themselves both physically and politically against the rest of society. To me, that's honestly the real ticking time bomb. People can change, grow and adapt to any number of situations - and are remarkably good at finding common ground with their neighbors when necessity dictates. However, once the masses lose their ability to meaningfully threaten the elites, the entire question becomes moot and the ship will have sailed for a long, long time.
    - chii 8y ago
      > small minority could feasibly defend themselves both physically and politically against the rest of society Look no further than China. They've already instituted a social credit system to control the masses' political discourse, and to prevent dissidents from gathering together and to have neutral groups turn against them for fear of reprimands. The future does not look good for the poor, and unlike yester-century, theres enough surveylance technology and automation to snuff any rebel group before critical mass.

roywiggins 8y ago

This tripartite split (elite, bourgeois, poor) is a very old one. I am sure I read a paper in an undergrad poly-sci course that analyzed the fate of nations based on which two teamed up against the third. Elites+poor is a pretty dangerous combination because they end up catching civil society in the pincers.

reggieband 8y ago
The author did make the argument that revolutions that start from the middle are usually less violent and chaotic. I don't have the relevant education to know if that is true but I do know that I'd rather lead a revolution than be the victim of it. To be fair to the author, that is his ultimate point. It feels to me that the idea of sacrifice has become a secular heresy. Humility as well. If the middle class has any hope of allying with the lower class then those two traits will have to ascend from ashes. The real questions is: are we too far gone and is it too late?
- doktrin 8y ago
  > If the middle class has any hope of allying with the lower class then those two traits will have to ascend from ashes. The real questions is: are we too far gone and is it too late? I'd honestly ask a slightly different question : how much longer will the lower and middle classes pose a realistic threat to the elites? To date, economic and social elites have always been at the theoretical mercy of the masses simply by virtue of vastly inferior numbers. We're not that far off from a day when - as a result of technological advances of various kinds - a small minority could feasibly defend themselves both physically and politically against the rest of society. To me, that's honestly the real ticking time bomb. People can change, grow and adapt to any number of situations - and are remarkably good at finding common ground with their neighbors when necessity dictates. However, once the masses lose their ability to meaningfully threaten the elites, the entire question becomes moot and the ship will have sailed for a long, long time.
  - chii 8y ago
    > small minority could feasibly defend themselves both physically and politically against the rest of society Look no further than China. They've already instituted a social credit system to control the masses' political discourse, and to prevent dissidents from gathering together and to have neutral groups turn against them for fear of reprimands. The future does not look good for the poor, and unlike yester-century, theres enough surveylance technology and automation to snuff any rebel group before critical mass.