Let’s not mistake humanity for collusion. Or empathy for agreement. Or kindness for support.
Humans have innate biases that screw us every time: terrible analysis of risk; awful long-term planning; and framing every bloody argument as us versus them, in-group vs out-group.
To suggest that issues can usefully be advanced by imagining “the people” vs “the elites” simultaneously plays into the hands of every ideologue ever, and ignores centuries of actual, measurable, tangible progress.
I’ll keep making the point until everyone else gives up in exasperation. There are no such thing as “elites”, there’s only one elite and it ain’t you or me.
The People is a category invoked when one faction of the elite tries to wrest something out of another faction. In their struggle they draft the People to be the foot soldiers but the end result is just a change of seats at the dinner party that you aren’t invited to.
It comes from the economic requirements of needing an educated workforce (in large highly connected cities) which for now has a greater bargaining position than what used to exist. Economic growth also changed the internal elite structures themselves. In the early Middle Ages the elite could all eat at the same dinner table. Today the elite is so large and disunited that it needs to conduct its politics in public and therefore there are opportunities to improve some conditions for the great plebian mass, The People.
Note that the vast majority of the non-elite population are not even plebians, do not live in wealthy countries and are generally excluded from the kind of buy offs and benefits that developed nation workers can obtain. In a global sense most developed world citizens are part of the global elite stratum but at the very bottom of it. Thats probably the only reason why they get listened to approximately 10% of the time.
To qualify as a member of the global 1% you need an income of only $30,000 per annum. That said the real power and influence is much higher up in the global 0.01%.
So why is now better than before? Growth. Or more specifically the spoils of growth that the elite have failed to hold on to for various reasons. Some reasons having to do with their protection and self-preservation through redistribution. A hundred years ago even the streets of Melbourne were unsafe places for the well-heeled to walk down. These days they are very safe, indeed world famously “liveable”.
Ha! That’s good. I’ll admit that it’s a crude analysis.
I think though it’s a reasonable idea that most of our global society’s decision making power still resides within the hands of a small minority. Our ability to influence that minority through political action shouldn’t be underestimated but I generally see “progress” in term of structural weaknesses within the ruling elite itself. Revolutions for example often happen at the point where the rulers want to negotiate not when their power is at its strongest. The rise of social democracy happened because the elite saw the danger that the Soviet Union posed as an alternative in the minds of workers (even if it was illusory or seen as imperfect). It could be seen as a moment of weakness but as Piketty says, the early 20th century decades of war were tough on the elite. They’ve been busy ever since 1980 to try and correct for that.
Progress historically is about kicking in clubhouse doors when the opportunity arises but again I see this as a process of elite expansion (and the resistance to it) in order to admit a significantly smaller group to the dinner party. By that I mean the process of admitting a small number of trade unionists, non-Anglo professionals or a handful of female corporate leaders. The background to that is a century and a half of political agitation, rebellions, civil rights and equality street marches and protest.
Never Stop Posting 
Is this a photoshop or what?
LikeLike
It really happened.
It happens everyday actually.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is such a thing as “ruling class”, but I might be wrong. Especially wrong in the states.
LikeLike
There’s one in Australia too. The political parties take it turns to do its bidding.
LikeLike
Let’s not mistake humanity for collusion. Or empathy for agreement. Or kindness for support.
Humans have innate biases that screw us every time: terrible analysis of risk; awful long-term planning; and framing every bloody argument as us versus them, in-group vs out-group.
To suggest that issues can usefully be advanced by imagining “the people” vs “the elites” simultaneously plays into the hands of every ideologue ever, and ignores centuries of actual, measurable, tangible progress.
LikeLike
I’ll keep making the point until everyone else gives up in exasperation. There are no such thing as “elites”, there’s only one elite and it ain’t you or me.
LikeLike
John Hardy not a Turnbull fan Who is it!? Do tell!
LikeLike
The People is a category invoked when one faction of the elite tries to wrest something out of another faction. In their struggle they draft the People to be the foot soldiers but the end result is just a change of seats at the dinner party that you aren’t invited to.
LikeLike
John Hardy not a Turnbull fan And yet now is better than then for any value of then. How do you imagine this progress occurs?
LikeLike
It comes from the economic requirements of needing an educated workforce (in large highly connected cities) which for now has a greater bargaining position than what used to exist. Economic growth also changed the internal elite structures themselves. In the early Middle Ages the elite could all eat at the same dinner table. Today the elite is so large and disunited that it needs to conduct its politics in public and therefore there are opportunities to improve some conditions for the great plebian mass, The People.
Note that the vast majority of the non-elite population are not even plebians, do not live in wealthy countries and are generally excluded from the kind of buy offs and benefits that developed nation workers can obtain. In a global sense most developed world citizens are part of the global elite stratum but at the very bottom of it. Thats probably the only reason why they get listened to approximately 10% of the time.
To qualify as a member of the global 1% you need an income of only $30,000 per annum. That said the real power and influence is much higher up in the global 0.01%.
LikeLike
So why is now better than before? Growth. Or more specifically the spoils of growth that the elite have failed to hold on to for various reasons. Some reasons having to do with their protection and self-preservation through redistribution. A hundred years ago even the streets of Melbourne were unsafe places for the well-heeled to walk down. These days they are very safe, indeed world famously “liveable”.
LikeLike
As usual, now that I actually understand what you’re saying, I agree with pretty much all of it! 🙂
LikeLike
Ha! That’s good. I’ll admit that it’s a crude analysis.
I think though it’s a reasonable idea that most of our global society’s decision making power still resides within the hands of a small minority. Our ability to influence that minority through political action shouldn’t be underestimated but I generally see “progress” in term of structural weaknesses within the ruling elite itself. Revolutions for example often happen at the point where the rulers want to negotiate not when their power is at its strongest. The rise of social democracy happened because the elite saw the danger that the Soviet Union posed as an alternative in the minds of workers (even if it was illusory or seen as imperfect). It could be seen as a moment of weakness but as Piketty says, the early 20th century decades of war were tough on the elite. They’ve been busy ever since 1980 to try and correct for that.
Progress historically is about kicking in clubhouse doors when the opportunity arises but again I see this as a process of elite expansion (and the resistance to it) in order to admit a significantly smaller group to the dinner party. By that I mean the process of admitting a small number of trade unionists, non-Anglo professionals or a handful of female corporate leaders. The background to that is a century and a half of political agitation, rebellions, civil rights and equality street marches and protest.
LikeLike
John Hardy not a Turnbull fan You’re right. The “bargain” to stave off communism was fairly explicitly laid out at the time, too.
LikeLike