What are the élites?

[Estro Felino]

In politology, the definition of élite is very simple.
It has nothing to do with being a millionaire or being highly educated.
It has nothing to do with being a powerful judge, or a Supreme Court member.

It has to do with these pillars
1) A member of the élites consider themselves élites, that means superior to the populace (who are inferior)
2) A member of the élites looks down on the populace, the people's needs come second.
3) A member of the élites is disposed to do anything to gain money, even at cost of the people's poverty
4) A member of the élites will never be held accountable for anything. They are untouchable.
5) A member of the élites wants to take the control over all resources within a country.

What does it mean? That there have been millionaires or very highly educated intellectuals who have fought for people's rights. They are not elites because they consider themselves populists.


Thoughts?

 

[Estro Felino]

I consider myself a populist.
Even if I were the wealthiest person ever, a SC justice, I would consider the baker, the seller, my brothers and sisters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In politology, the definition of élite is very simple.
It has nothing to do with being a millionaire or being highly educated.
It has nothing to do with being a powerful judge, or a Supreme Court member.

It has to do with these pillars
1) A member of the élites consider themselves élites, that means superior to the populace (who are inferior)
2) A member of the élites looks down on the populace, the people's needs come second.
3) A member of the élites is disposed to do anything to gain money, even at cost of the people's poverty
4) A member of the élites will never been held accountable for anything. They are untouchable.
5) A member of the élites wants to take the control of all resources within a country.

What does it mean? That there have been millionaires or very highly educated intellectuals who have fought for people's rights. They are not elites because they consider themselves populists.


Thoughts?

It is to simple, because they don't do all the work themselves. You also that to look at how that works and ideologies and what they have in common.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is to simple, because they don't do all the work themselves. You also that to look at how that works and ideologies and what they have in common.

With all due respect...but I didn't get anything.
who does what and why?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In politology, the definition of élite is very simple.
It has nothing to do with being a millionaire or being highly educated.
It has nothing to do with being a powerful judge, or a Supreme Court member.

It has to do with these pillars
1) A member of the élites consider themselves élites, that means superior to the populace (who are inferior)
2) A member of the élites looks down on the populace, the people's needs come second.
3) A member of the élites is disposed to do anything to gain money, even at cost of the people's poverty
4) A member of the élites will never been held accountable for anything. They are untouchable.
5) A member of the élites wants to take the control of all resources within a country.

What does it mean? That there have been millionaires or very highly educated intellectuals who have fought for people's rights. They are not elites because they consider themselves populists.


Thoughts?

The 'elites' is a sufficiently vague way to talk about 'them' in negative ways.
Who is 'them'? Whomever you'd like them to be. As long as they're not you or your key supporters.

Sometimes they're progressives.
Sometimes they're media pundits (but not, it's important to note, ones supportive of patriotic positions)
Sometimes they're people arguing nuance and alternative viewpoints.
Sometimes they're big city folk.

I can define 'populist' too if you like. But that would be more cynical.

 

[Estro Felino]

The 'elites' is a sufficiently vague way to talk about 'them' in negative ways.
Who is 'them'? Whomever you'd like them to be. As long as they're not you or your key supporters.

Sometimes they're progressives.
Sometimes they're media pundits (but not, it's important to note, ones supportive of patriotic positions)
Sometimes they're people arguing nuance and alternative viewpoints.
Sometimes they're big city folk.

I can define 'populist' too if you like. But that would be more cynical.

No...I was very clear.
It is them who consider themselves élites. Meaning, superior to others.
Not the other way around.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

In politology, the definition of élite is very simple.
It has nothing to do with being a millionaire or being highly educated.
It has nothing to do with being a powerful judge, or a Supreme Court member.

It has to do with these pillars
1) A member of the élites consider themselves élites, that means superior to the populace (who are inferior)
2) A member of the élites looks down on the populace, the people's needs come second.
3) A member of the élites is disposed to do anything to gain money, even at cost of the people's poverty
4) A member of the élites will never been held accountable for anything. They are untouchable.
5) A member of the élites wants to take the control of all resources within a country.

What does it mean? That there have been millionaires or very highly educated intellectuals who have fought for people's rights. They are not elites because they consider themselves populists.


Thoughts?

When you put it that way, it sounds like "elite" is a synonym for "tyrannical *******".

 

[Estro Felino]

I can define 'populist' too if you like. But that would be more cynical.

Please do.
It's a debate, you have to debate.

 

[Estro Felino]

When you put it that way, it sounds like "elite" is a synonym for "tyrannical *******".

Precisely.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No...I was very clear.
It is them who consider themselves élites. Meaning, superior to others.
Not the other way around.

You say 'tomato', I say elites is used as a prejorative by demogogues.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Please do.
It's a debate, you have to debate.

'Populist' : someone more interested in taking popular positions that appear to help working class people than policies that help working class people.

 

[Estro Felino]

'Populist' : someone more interested in taking popular positions that appear to help working class people than policies that help working class people.

That is a very good point.
People will have to determine whether it deals with real populists.

 

[Estro Felino]

You say 'tomato', I say elites is used as a prejorative by demogogues.

An anecdote.
I can assure you that in Italy so many intellectuals have been caught saying "we are very proud of being elites, because we are far better than the vulgar populace".
I can also say name and surname.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

With all due respect...but I didn't get anything.
who does what and why?

How do the elites control the common people and do they treat common people differently?

 

[Estro Felino]

How do the elites control the common people and do they treat common people differently?

To begin with, they look down on them.
Or worse, they are disgusted by them, the populace.

So this is not a good start to act on commoners's behalf.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Precisely.

Do you support or have sympathy for someone or a group who is often considered an "elite/tyrannical *******" by others?
Otherwise I don't really get why you find it important to get people to make a distinction between "elite" and "powerful people with their hearts in the right place".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To begin with, they look down on them.
Or worse, they are disgusted by them, the populace.

So this is not a good start to act on commoners's behalf.

So how do they control the commoners?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

An anecdote.
I can assure you that in Italy so many intellectuals have been caught saying "we are very proud of being elites, because we are far better than the vulgar populace".
I can also say name and surname.

If I was going to put my serious pants on...

In political theory, elite is generally defined by an outsized impact on power, and that this power isn't tied to democratic elections.
So...whilst one person has one vote, an individual like Rupert Murdoch fits elite theory pretty neatly.

Of course my more pithy explanation of 'elites' better explains why Donald Trump wouldn't refer to Murdoch as part of the 'elite' (or himself), despite this being definitionally true.

Populists aren't really concerned with what a term means. Only with perception. And again, I'm suggesting 'populist' in the common sense, rather than the highly theoretical (perhaps non-existent) one.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you support or have sympathy for someone or a group who is often considered an "elite/tyrannical *******" by others?
Otherwise I don't really get why you find it important to get people to make a distinction between "elite" and "powerful people with their hearts in the right place".

No. I don't have sympathy for those who don't care about the commoners' suffering and the commoners' needs.

Quid pro quo: you want my sympathy? You need to care about them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I don't have sympathy for those who don't care about the commoners' suffering and the commoners' needs.

Quid pro quo: you want my sympathy? You need to care about them.

I try to that different, since we are all humans and I don't want to be like them. We ought to care for all humans IMHO.