|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 05 2013 04:42 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 15:00 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On September 04 2013 05:56 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
I hate it when I completely lose my reading comprehension abilities. I was under the impression the book included people like doctors and lawyers in the elite.
Or maybe it does. thedeadhaji includes people in prestigious fields as members of the elite. I hope the book isn't stating that people working in the more profitable fields are members of the elite. If that is the case, a more "grey" view is necessary. A book that fails to move beyond black and white is a book that should never have been written, penned by an author that should never have opened his mouth.
On another note, does the book cover the cost of financial security? Surprisingly, financial security is one of the more expensive things in the world. You can have several times the money of your average joe and yet still be too poor to know that you're ready for a rainy day (or year, as the recent recession taught us). From what thedeadhaji posted of the book so far, I don't think the 'elite' is particularly defined by profession. It seems to be mostly about having disproportionately large amount of influence on the policy, the market, and social attitudes of whatever society they belong to. So naturally it's going to be biased towards rich executives, politicians, religious leaders, and socially influential figures (celebrity and really famous scientists etc). Whereas as a general rule only includes small numbers of lawyers (eg district/state's attorney's who will have an easy pathway into politics later), doctors, scientists etc. As I understand it, being a part of the elite is not so much about wealth, income, education etc, as about having influence. While those things are very conductive to having influence, you could theoretically be very wealthy, well educated and even respected, without being a part of the 'elite' if you choose to exert little or no influence over society/politics at large, and your wealth/education/respect did not come about itself because you were born part of the elite, eg if your parents were very rich. It's been a few weeks since I read the book, but iirc the author lays out (1) power, (2) influence, and (3) money as levers that the elite have, and once you have one of these you can trade what you have for the other two. Washington is the most evident example of this I think.
That is pretty much the same as what I said, I just use the word 'Influence' in a more liberal sense, to generally be able to make things happen the way you want. What is power exactly? It's pretty much influence that comes about by way of authority. What is the value of money? It's just some numbers in a bank account, it's value comes about by what it can buy, what it can make other people do for it, and with a large enough amount, what your choice of where to leverage it can do to the market.
In a way, power, influence and money are just three means to the same end. They are all just a way to measure how much you are able to get/do what you want. Which brings me to my original point, the elite, as I understand it, isn't defined by profession but by possessing a disproportionate amount of this ability to get/do what they want, often this can and is used to obtain an even more disproportionate amount of 'Influence'.
Being an elite is like having a genie in a bottle that DOES let you wish for more wishes.
|
No human beings are elite. We are all slaves of something, and quite imperfect. It is a made up word to fool people into thinking they are actually in power and influence, and are part of a selected few, thus unique.
I am sure it is an effective tool, nonetheless.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
>doubleupgrade
oh sorry I was agreeing with what you said and was expanding on it. apologies that I wasn't clearer.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 05 2013 18:07 thedeadhaji wrote:
>doubleupgrade
oh sorry I was agreeing with what you said and was expanding on it. apologies that I wasn't clearer.
Oh, well thats embarassing, I guess we're all in agreement then 
|
On September 05 2013 04:04 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 03:29 GrandInquisitor wrote:This means that we are cursed with an overclass convinced it is composed of scrappy underdogs, individuals who are obsessed with the relative disadvantages they may have faced rather than the privilege they enjoyed. It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story. In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it. Doesn't this work the other way around too? An "underclass" convinced it is composed of those that are talented but just plain unlucky, people who could "strike it big", "smart kids" who would totally get A's if they tried. People who look at successful men and say it's just because they're handsome or born into wealth or got lucky. People often use "privilege" as an excuse for their own failures and shortcomings. As a way of making themselves feel better about not having succeeded, or to rationalize away sloth. I don't deny that a lot of successful people would prefer their life story to have been one of hard work instead of privilege. But it's just as hypocritical for someone to blame their own lack of success on their misfortune. In real life, like in gaming, success is a mixture of both. Hard work prepares you for and allows you to take advantage of good fortune. Breaking out of the victimization mentality and realizing your responsibilities towards yourself is the first step towards success -- be it financial, romantic, or however else you choose to define it. You're taking the quote out of context. There are many powerful people who are not as qualified as someone else to be there; conversely there are many poor people who missed out on opportunities to climb up the social ladder. The important criticism is that the "overclass" creates a self-mythos that willingly ignores the interconnected and self-sustaining nature of its own culture. This is their rationale that they deserve to have power over the rest of the population: in some manner they are "better" than the rest of us. It is a rationale that comes hand in hand with the existence of a political/intellectual/social/economic elite.
Once upon a time there were 7 billion pennies. Every morning the pennies were flipped by an invisible hand and those pennies that came up tails died in pain. On the morning of the 31st day 7 pennies awoke and nothing happened. No invisible hand, no painful death After a while 1 penny turned to the others and said "Those bastards got what was coming to them".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Melvin Lerner ... sought to answer the questions of how regimes that cause cruelty and suffering maintain popular support, and how people come to accept social norms and laws that produce misery and suffering. Lerner's inquiry was influenced by repeatedly witnessing the tendency of observers to blame victims for their suffering.
|
Thought this was going to be about Bisu 
Sounds like an interesting book.
|
The main problem with Hayes' argument and similar ones is that the solutions presented generally boil down to remove the current elite and replace it with a new and idealized elite that will somehow not possess the faults of the previous elite. But it usually doesn't work that well. An "elite" subculture exerts its own pressure on individuals that changes them regardless of who they were before or what particular politico-cultural opinions they hold. Culturally, two members of "the elite" have more in common with each other even if they hold aggressively opposing opinions than they do with anyone not in "the elite."
(It also doesn't help that faults and virtues are commonly misidentified as agreement or disagreement with the argument-maker's own political opinions)
|
On September 09 2013 17:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The main problem with Hayes' argument and similar ones is that the solutions presented generally boil down to remove the current elite and replace it with a new and idealized elite that will somehow not possess the faults of the previous elite. But it usually doesn't work that well. An "elite" subculture exerts its own pressure on individuals that changes them regardless of who they were before or what particular politico-cultural opinions they hold. Culturally, two members of "the elite" have more in common with each other even if they hold aggressively opposing opinions than they do with anyone not in "the elite."
(It also doesn't help that faults and virtues are commonly misidentified as agreement or disagreement with the argument-maker's own political opinions)
This 1000%. One of the main reasons I find the 2 party system in America so pointless now
|
sounds like you are propounding a theory of permanent revolution then, debbie  <3
jefferson and trotsky, odd bedfellows perhaps, but there you have it
|
For generations, scholars and thinkers of both left and right who have taken to analyzing the elite have recognized that the most salient features of its members isn't their consumer preferences, aesthetic tastes, or some vague notion of "snobbishness," but rather their relatively small number, their power relative to the power of the wide swath of their fellow citizens, and their interconnectedness.
That is almost totally meaningless. Something along the lines of "the elite are the elite because they are elite." Small number with lots of power and connections? You don't say.
Many of those quotes remind me of Tom Holland's book, _Rubicon_, in which he discusses the late republic, before and during the time of Caesar et al. He mentions that perhaps one of the most important factors driving the fall of the republic was that the cultural milieu at the time involved heavily competitive people, and that the people themselves believed that what made Rome great was that only the best citizens were able to lead as consuls, and that new up-and-comers who were more competent always had a chance to rise up in their place, since the consulship was limited to 1 year. This resulted in intense competition amongst the elite and those trying to obtain power, which ultimately escalated from Marius to Sulla to Caesar and Pompey.
|
^ha! Sounds good I will have to read that.
I am currently reading bourdieu's 'distinction'. He would disagree that aesthetic taste is not an important part. How do the stay small and interconnected without defining an elite culture? This is the point of andover and its ilk, to give you the right social capital so you can be elite and act like it
|
'Elite' is such a garbage concept.
The only place I'd use it seriously for would be for the world leaders. For example the G20 presidents, or the rich banker families that run the banking business aka the world.
So, you are not elite deadhaji, and calling yourself that just because you think your job or education is uber, portrays you as an insecure kid to me.
The common use of the word 'elite' is just snobism, a smelly swamp, and I would recommend anyone who uses it to feel good about themselves, to have some alone time with yourself and ask yourself some questions. Like, what the fuck am I doing on this world??
So many good souls are lost to this 'game'. They do shit just so they feel they're 'high status'.
ahhhh I think i got incoherent but caring too little atm to shape the post up... hopefully it's not angsty jibberish, but an idea shines thru.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 12 2013 04:37 niteReloaded wrote:
'Elite' is such a garbage concept.
The only place I'd use it seriously for would be for the world leaders. For example the G20 presidents, or the rich banker families that run the banking business aka the world.
So, you are not elite deadhaji, and calling yourself that just because you think your job or education is uber, portrays you as an insecure kid to me.
The common use of the word 'elite' is just snobism, a smelly swamp, and I would recommend anyone who uses it to feel good about themselves, to have some alone time with yourself and ask yourself some questions. Like, what the fuck am I doing on this world??
So many good souls are lost to this 'game'. They do shit just so they feel they're 'high status'.
ahhhh I think i got incoherent but caring too little atm to shape the post up... hopefully it's not angsty jibberish, but an idea shines thru.
Have you even read the thread, or the opening post?
The way it's being defined, just means people who are in a position of influence because they are the beneficiaries of a system and a position that gives them a disproportionate and self-reinforcing advantage. Not really something you would claim if you just wanted to feel good about yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
