Are there any good elites, or does their very status as elites render them bad by default?

By elites, I mean both people with material wealth and also people with significant cultural and political power within so-called elite institutions. Is it possible to be a good millionaire, New York Times columnist, Ivy League president, or U.S. senator? Or are they all necessarily compromised by their relation to power and therefore undeserving of any praise, respect, or trust?

To be glib, you can acknowledge the inevitable compromises with power and still do good work for citizens. Isn't this the story of New Deal liberalism?

Good is a strange way of looking at it. The elite by your definition consume far more than their share of resources and command disproportionate control over wealth; these two facts mean that there’s less left for everyone else. That’s how capitalism works: the promise of wealth for a few and everyone else left scrambling for the scraps.

undeserving of any praise, respect, or trust?

I also find this a strange question; if I was a billionaire I probably wouldn’t give a shit if ordinary people liked me. When you’re that rich, you don’t have to. Deserving is very loaded - how many geniuses in this world are doing jobs to scrape some sort of a living and are therefore unknown to us because of their material circumstances?

Let me put it this way: If I happen to approve of anything that an elite says or does, or find some moral worth in it, does that make me a credulous fool and complicit in upholding institutional power structures?

Depends on the company you keep!

Let me put it this way: If I happen to approve of anything that an elite says or does, or find some moral worth in it, does that make me a credulous fool and complicit in upholding institutional power structures?

― jaymc, Tuesday, 27 April 2021 15:52 (two minutes ago) link

Reading this post in a Carrie Bradshaw voice

Needs an "I couldn't help but wonder"

I generally don't weigh in on questions like this, but to me, if someone rich and powerful does something beneficial, I don't think it's a moral failing to approve. I know Bill Gates benefitted greatly from all the computers and software he donated to my school board, but the students did too--and I believe, and hope, at least a few of them will go on to take on Bill Gates one day.

Let me put it this way: If I happen to approve of anything that an elite says or does, or find some moral worth in it, does that make me a credulous fool and complicit in upholding institutional power structures?

I disagree with the premise of your question.

joe flacco

I think you can sometimes, perhaps inevitably, accept that people do good things or have good qualities within their field but still believe the field should be torn up and sown with salt

"good"?

I would say the default assumption should be that these elites are deserving of scorn until proven otherwise. This is unlikely to generate negative consequences, you're never going to miss anything important ignoring NYTimes opinion writers.

A lot of us seem reasonably fond of musicians who have both material wealth and cultural power. Are they "elites"

you're never going to miss anything important ignoring NYTimes opinion writers.

Speak for yourself.

??????

I disagree with the premise of your question.

A lot of us seem reasonably fond of musicians who have both material wealth and cultural power. Are they "elites"

Lol owned @ me for not clearing my zing draft.

To finish that thought: feel free to disagree with the premise of my question, but don’t reply to people trying to ascertain the reason behind the question with snappy responses as it gives away that you’re more interested in validation than discussion.

is this what happens in the uspol threads every day

yes

if only ilx had a benign monarch called 'imago' who was willing to perform comedy modding every day

From what I remember, simply docking your ship without crashing it was nigh-impossible, so no

"good"?

Yeah silby the quote marks are v much part of the process, I think there are layers of contradictory thought with the way a lot of people talk about the characters of elites, and I don't think that doublethink is good or helpful but I think most of us do it, sometimes

You're right, gyac, maybe I am more interested in validation than discussion, in which case I apologize for starting this thread. I guess I feel like this question is at the root of a lot of political disagreement on ILX, so I thought it could be useful to grapple with it directly. But I also could have predicted that milo would have posted exactly what he just did, so maybe there's not much point to it.

Just to be transparent about my motivations, I posted this elsewhere (in a private Slack):

I just started an ILX thread in a fit of pique, but I'm already kind of regretting it. It's about elites and whether they are Good. I think some people who have wealth and/or power are good people who genuinely care about others and do good works and are not hopelessly compromised by their status at the top of the pyramid. But others seem to view all elites as necessarily self-interested and incapable of moral behavior and toward whom we should always take an skeptical and often-adversarial attitude. I understand that worldview from an intellectual perspective, but I can't help but like certain individual elites (mostly politicians and journalists) even as I agree that the institutions they occupy need to be reformed. (In fact, most of the elites I like believe that, too!) The problem is that the people who treat all elites as enemies make me feel like a dupe of the establishment, like someone who uncritically embraces bourgeois values, and I don't like feeling that way.

Maybe clear-eyed skepticism is the best approach to elites.

I decried plummy toned riched southside boys from private schools until i started meeting them irl and theyre a grand bunch of lads tbh, sweethearts to a man

Now youd ask why wouldnt they be their world is sugar and nice housing and youd also be right

speaking as an elite, i can answer that there are good elites, as i am one of them.

jaymc, would you prefer a world with elites or one without them? if it's the latter I wouldn't fret too much over the value of individuals

Both of darragh's post there v relevant and the heart of the matter imo

Elite scientists may not have much material wealth, but some of them do hold positions of influence in elite institutions. On the whole I would rate them as doing more good than harm.

The more narrowly you confine your view to sub-specialties within the sciences, the more easily one can see which ones tend toward benefit and which toward harm. At present, zoology, botany or meteorology are easier to defend than materials sciences or organic chemistry. Medical science is a very mixed bag.

I really hate the use of the word "elites" to refer to UHNW classes. To me, the word has positive connotations, a mark of extreme personal accomplishment: academics, artists, athletes. Don't TELL the upper crust that they are more elite than us just because they're wealthy.

the only elites i'll defend are 31337 H4X0RZ

BOOM

To flash back to peace man the word can't have positive connotations cos it's built to defend the indefensible, better to lose the word

I hear you tho. but no

Every elite that you want to believe in there is a part of an inequitable broke structure, somehow

jaymc, would you prefer a world with elites or one without them? if it's the latter I wouldn't fret too much over the value of individuals

― intern at pepe le pew research (Simon H.), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 1:31 PM (forty-seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

This is a good question, though it's hard for me to imagine what a world entirely without elites would look like. I would prefer a world with less inequality and more opportunity for all. But it seems inevitable that society will structure itself in some type of hierarchical fashion.

Inevitably is, of course, a product of ideology

yeah i am a lot more concerned with how they got there (not as individuals, but historically) than with judging the worth of any one of them. they will never use their power to undo that so that is why i have no use for them as a group.

That's fair, NV. It's just a hard thing to wrap my head around. Would I prefer that the society *wasn't* structured in a hierarchical fashion? Sure, I mean, it sounds good! But it also feels like fantastical science fiction.

jay I think one of the things I'm getting at is these things are baked deep into our language and thoughts, I guess that's the point of the thread. And I think most of us hold these contradictory thoughts sometimes because politics as abstract v people with shitty beliefs who we know irl but still like

[some old Robespierre quote basically saying in quite a florid and long-winded manner: let's do these fuckers]

people with shitty beliefs who we know irl but still like

― Call of Scampi: Slack Nephrops (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:50 PM

?

"we should strive not to have elites" and "this one elite did something defensible" aren't really contradictory positions

The problem is that the people who treat all elites as enemies make me feel like a dupe of the establishment, like someone who uncritically embraces bourgeois values, and I don't like feeling that way.

if you think class is a thing then this question should basically answer itself but the moralistic language is optional

Is there any functional difference between a rigid hereditary class system, such as existed say in pre-modern Europe, and the elite of a modern meritocratic society?

well in premodern Europe the peasantry were often serfs bound to the land of their feudal lord so…yes?

there is lots of arts/culture created by people who were or are privileged or comfortably embedded in the establishment of their era that I do appreciate a lot - it's sometimes a bonus for me if they aren't posh bastards and are relatable council estate scratters in some way, but not always. But this isn't some tacit approval of the power structures that helped put them there.

i don't think so, based on what i assume control to mean. of course if you control the resources yourself there is plenty of justification

What about naturally-endowed resources, such as innate intelligence, athleticism, looks, etc? Should there be an attempt to level the effects of these differences as well?

i wouldn't presume these things are self evident, or self evidently innate, or even things at all prior to the kind of stratification which they can be used to justify

I didn't quite get that, but probably just my innate lack of intelligence.

one of the things I'm getting at is these things are baked deep into our language and thoughts ( ... )

― Call of Scampi: Slack Nephrops (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:50 PM (fifty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah well some of us a lot more than others

joe flacco

― the mai tai quinn (voodoo chili), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:32 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

still laughing at this tbh

This is the key point of your post for me and I’d ask if you have thought about why you don’t like feeling that way.
― Scamp Granada (gyac), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 3:06 PM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I suppose one reason is because my sense of self-worth is, for better or worse (probably worse), bound up in feeling like I am a smart and perceptive person, and so when other people who seem smart are blithely dismissive of certain writers or public figures whom I like and find worthwhile (not just critical of an idea, but like "this person is an obvious moron and/or amoral monster"), it makes me feel dumb and insecure.

"What about naturally-endowed resources, such as innate intelligence, athleticism, looks, etc?"

none of these things are objective, and are deeply tied to the social structure that undergirds them!

do you feel upset by smart-seeming people dismissing movies/music that you like? xp

Music, not really. Movies, sometimes.

one of the things I'm getting at is these things are baked deep into our language and thoughts ( ... )

― Call of Scampi: Slack Nephrops (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:50 PM (fifty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah well some of us a lot more than others

― John Cooper of Christian rock band Skillet (map), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:48 PM (twenty-two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

^this was a read related to how bizarre that "naturally-endowed resources ..." phrase, just like so grossly eugenics-y. also meritocracy isn't just flawed in execution, it's a flawed concept from the get-go.

brilliance is in everyone. some people are obviously more suited to doing certain things. but applying a rigid, extremely limited measurement to people and then doling out their ability to survive based on that is monstrous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_t7pTfdYts

i was thinking more jesus in the gospels but that'll do

one of the things I'm getting at is these things are baked deep into our language and thoughts ( ... )

― Call of Scampi: Slack Nephrops (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:50 PM (fifty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah well some of us a lot more than others

― John Cooper of Christian rock band Skillet (map), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:48 PM (twenty-two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

^this was a read related to how bizarre that "naturally-endowed resources ..." phrase, just like so grossly eugenics-y. also meritocracy isn't just flawed in execution, it's a flawed concept from the get-go.

brilliance is in everyone. some people are obviously more suited to doing certain things. but applying a rigid, extremely limited measurement to people and then doling out their ability to survive based on that is monstrous.

― John Cooper of Christian rock band Skillet (map), Tuesday, 27 April 2021 22:18 (thirty-two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

absolutely and i probably worded it poorly

the notion of "elite" is a part of a world-view that we're surrounded by from birth, the word "good" is a political statement, applying it to people who maintain an evil structure is silly

but but but

here we all are in a world of distorted values

a bit more thought has made me realise that my perspective on that distortion is a product of privilege, why argue otherwise?

"What about naturally-endowed resources, such as innate intelligence, athleticism, looks, etc?"

none of these things are objective, and are deeply tied to the social structure that undergirds them!

believing in naturally-endowed talent is an automatic admission of succumbing to ideology, basically

jaymc your question is phrased so hyperbolically that it's difficult to address

yo can i get an invite to your slack

and now the slack wars commence

Good at what?

Anyway, Giannis Antetokounmpo is a multimillionaire, so yes

Good = worthy of moral approval

Exactly. Plenty of geniuses out there we’ll never know about because they’re focused on survival.

― Scamp Granada (gyac), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 11:03 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

believing in naturally-endowed talent is an automatic admission of succumbing to ideology, basically

― Call of Scampi: Slack Nephrops (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, April 27, 2021 11:05 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

i'm sympathetic to what gyac is saying and maybe they weren't like making a serious statement about the validity of "genius" as a phenomenon. but i'm in strong agreement with nv here.

brilliance is in everyone. some people are obviously more suited to doing certain things. but applying a rigid, extremely limited measurement to people and then doling out their ability to survive based on that is monstrous.

― John Cooper of Christian rock band Skillet (map), Tuesday, 27 April 2021 21:18 (one hour ago)

For all that people like to take digs at Ibram Kendi, he is – at least in the one book of his I've read, Stamped From the Beginning – very clear and persuasive in his insistence that any credible antiracist politics must start from a position like the one map has articulated here.

We might think we can grant racists their premise that ability is unevenly distributed between populations, only to demonstrate that this unequal distribution is socially produced instead of racially inherited. In fact, we lose as soon as the premise is granted.

I probably qualify as an elite in some ways, I mean I don't have Bezos money or write for the NYT but by most standards I'm benefiting from the current system. Wouldn't bet that I'm alone in this on ILX either.

jaymc, I think "morally good" and "worth reading opinions of" are two very different things? To put it in a clichéd way and to echo what others have already said, the problems with the current system are structural so to focus on the moral good or evil of individuals, while sometimes cathartic, is ultimately a distraction from the real work. And there's also of course no real way to solve this on an individual level - i.e. if a rich dude gives away all his money to worthy causes and spends the rest of his life squatting somewhere that doesn't actually do very much to change inequality.

HOWEVER - elites by definition benefit from the current system, so it's pretty fair to be suspicious of elites who feel the need to comment on the world's woes and how it should be improved. This counts even for those arguing against their own interests (in the same way you wouldn't centre an anti-racist white person in a debate about racism), but of course much more so for those whose job it is to reassure us that actually the system works as well as could be hoped for, or that the solutions to its problems are attainable without any dramatic decrease in inequality.

More generally though, I know this is some debate club 101 stuff but it feels a bit like you've got this all backwards anyway: if you are convinced by the arguments it shouldn't really matter if the person delivering them is morally good, a good idea is a good idea. The clowning of the people you enjoy reading probably doesn't come from examining said person's background before reading an opinion, but from people finding the opinions laughable and/or repugnant and doing some digging into the person's background to find a reason for them to espouse such views.

1. I think its deeply naive or disingenuous to say that elites are simply those that benefit most from contemporary inequality. The world we live in is not simply pre-existing and the structural nature of inequality (and our varying degrees of complicity within those structures) should not blind us to how powerful individuals can exert extraordinary world-making control: this is fundamentally bound up with how they maintain this power and how they got there in the first place. There's an extraordinary amount of resources, labour and collective ingenuity sponsored every day in the interest of preserving and deepening precisely those interests.

My critique and I think the one lots of people are voicing here is not about a disconnect or hypocrisy between benefiting from capitalism, exploitation, etc, and partially redistributing them philanthropic enterprises or using this position to 'speak out'. rather it is a critique of the very active role that elites have in creating the structures that we exist within or at the very least recraft those structures in their interests (how else to explain lobbying, corporate litigation, and media monopolies?).

2. I think its also naive or disingenuous in this instance to simply to "the arguments" made by powerful interests with outsized power to shape the social, political and legal predicates of those arguments. It is very different for a small aid organisation to say "we need to undertake frontline work to offset global health inequalities regarding the rollout of covid vaccinations" (to use an example alluded to by many on this thread) and for the bill and melinda gates organisation to say the same thing given the very active role it has taken in fortifying intellectual property rights for the pharmaceutical industry.

I think looking at the general reporting of the Covax scheme within the media is an example that lays bare how corporate political and media elites conspire to sell us an image of neocolonialism as benevolent in a way that is recognisably similar to victorian colonial discourses which framed the exploitation of colonies as an almost philanthropic gesture or mutually beneficial project of economic development. For the most part we now recognise that this was clearly not the case so why is it so harder to recognise similar processes at work today? Ultimately its that elites have similar powers to shape the accepted norms that allow this presentation and we are sold the predicates of this every day and put to work within them. And they do work hard at this, there was some controversy recently on these boards about the bill and melinda foundation sponsoring and article in a liberal newspaper by a tobacco lobbyist making an argument that drew on a social justice framing and implicit critique of postcoloniality to argue in favour of child labour within the tobacco industry in africa (arguing for recognising 'local contextual factors' and the framing the benefits as questions of 'global development').

3. Fundamentally it is deeply simplistic to see our plight through the lens of 'structural' factors or individualism. We are not either all innocent or all guilty and recognising the role of power and agency in shaping the world we live in should alert us to how that power and agency is being exerted by those who speak to us often in this language of paternal concern.

Ya

Exactly. Plenty of geniuses out there we’ll never know about because they’re focused on survival.

― Scamp Granada (gyac), Tuesday, 27 April 2021 22:03 (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

*Sanpaku intensifies*

Always great to be compared to a conspiracist who’s a bit to fond of certain ideas for making the argument that material conditions mean many people will never realise their full potential

too, get fucked, autocorrect

Would also maybe tack a little more directly to jaymcs source of worry by (possibly repeating my betters here) noting that yes you can separate the individual from the works from the structures at any one juncture as best suits yr needs at any one time but for the purposes of living yr best life tm vs being yr unimpeachably best self tm the configuration of your own internal sensitivities would need to be attuned more or less finely for either purpose

Lol I wasn't comparing you to Sanpaku gyac, I meant that he was like who you were describing but also I was joking oh who cares

I think its deeply naive or disingenuous to say that elites are simply those that benefit most from contemporary inequality. The world we live in is not simply pre-existing and the structural nature of inequality (and our varying degrees of complicity within those structures) should not blind us to how powerful individuals can exert extraordinary world-making control: this is fundamentally bound up with how they maintain this power and how they got there in the first place. There's an extraordinary amount of resources, labour and collective ingenuity sponsored every day in the interest of preserving and deepening precisely those interests.

Ok, but surely a powerful individual who doesn't spend much effort in preserving and deepening these interests is still an elite? And I don't think this is a pure hypothetical - the system as is pretty much does their job for them in this regard. Tons of rich, powerful people just go about their lives w/o much engaging or working to maintain their wealth.

Also by jaymc's defintion the elites include, like, writers for the NYT, who are clearly not "powerful individuals that can exert extraordinary world-making control" - you could say they're getting paid to be minions of the people who do, but I don't think this has to work in conscious, direct ways. Again, the pre-existing system merely makes the bullshit the most convininent option, and while I don't think that makes the op ed writers "all innocent", I don't think it's as direct as your description either.

1: Yes of course many wealthy people are 'passively wealthy' and I was careful in my argument to specify that this labour is sponsored. I feel quite certain that many wealthy individuals are lazy as sin but their money is quite industrious in employing much resources and consequently hands and brains to work on their behalf. It is literally this that allows them to have such an outsized effect. Their status as an elite is literally the result of them being able to corral these collective efforts to this individual result. Maybe you have some other definition of an elite but i'm not really sure what it means if its not precisely the power to exert this kind of control.

Moreover I don't think it does need to work in 'conscious, direct ways.' It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Bill Gates thinks that his foundation is absolutely a source of good in the world. Quite the contrary, I suspect that this kind of megalomania leads quite inexorably to a redistribution of resources that extends his power and reach into worldwide decisionmaking about public health and governance in a way that celebrates his beneficence as a great philanthropist while strengthening normative and material infrastructure that his wealth and power derive from. Similarly when billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya proposed to run for California governor recently his proposed pledges began with a promise to cut taxes to 0% alongside promises to vastly improve conditions for teachers etc. I think one can be cynical about this self-serving goal without needing to engage in whether or not he 'believes' in the social justice language he couches his political campaign in. Its entirely possible to believe that someone in his position would experience little cognitive dissonance between something which is beneficial to everyone and something which is very beneficial to himself, and the position afforded by his wealth is very effective in buffering him from the effects of these promises.

2: wrt New York Times writers, I would say that neither is it the case that jaymc's definition of elites is necessarily the most comprehensive one (?) nor are all NYT writers in the same boat. There's a big difference between struggling freelancers writing small pieces in the metro section and garlanded think-piece writers. However there are a few problems with the NYT writer example here:

(a)I would hardly have thought that this is exactly 'the line of least resistance.' I'm not a journalist but my understanding is that this is an increasingly very difficult profession to get into, one has to work incredibly hard and make the best use of ones material and social capital to be a NYT writer (be able to afford to live in NYC while interning say, have attended an elite university etc. again i don't claim to know much about this particular topic but my understanding is that the class demographic here has become more and more 'elite' which is sortof interesting given how one could imagine the explosive possibilities for publishing afforded by the internet etc could just as easily have led to an entirely different set of outcomes. how are these opportunities becoming more rare given one might imagine that the possibility of endless publishing space could have resulted in the opposite. but i'll end this digression here). Again I think to simply say that media follows lines of least resistance is a very easy way of evacuating the role of powerful individuals and voices in shaping those narratives.

(b) At the moment in the UK the print media is controlled by a very small coterie of press barons, and one often has the sense in watching how large media narratives unfold or suddenly shift in the press here, of powerful individuals intervening implicitly or explicitly to redirect, exacerbate or simply cut short emerging themes and narratives. Partly this is about the cosiness of lobby journalists sympathetic to and/or beholden to powerful political figures and a shared set of class interests, but also its about a media landscape which has in its most literal sense been bought by powerful elites with the furtherance of their own position in mind. While again here one might say that the line between agency, complicity and passivity are often ambiguous, this emphatically does not mean that we cannot be alert to the influence of the role and pressures that power and agency play governing the role of (in this example) print media in shaping social and political norms, 'manufacturing consent' etc. If this were not the case, it would at least beg the question as to why these figures invest so much resources into this project in the first place?

in conclusion have you heard of davos?

I would hardly have thought that this is exactly 'the line of least resistance.' I'm not a journalist but my understanding is that this is an increasingly very difficult profession to get into, one has to work incredibly hard and make the best use of ones material and social capital to be a NYT writer

lol it is not the line of least resistance to work for the NYTimes - it is the line of least resistance to espouse pro-wealthy views, both because of the direct and indirect pressures you list and because pro-wealth rhetoric is endemic to American society.

I feel quite certain that many wealthy individuals are lazy as sin but their money is quite industrious in employing much resources and consequently hands and brains to work on their behalf.

If the money works regardless of what its owners do for that to happen...that sounds pretty structural to me.

Maybe you have some other definition of an elite but i'm not really sure what it means if its not precisely the power to exert this kind of control.

I would say that neither is it the case that jaymc's definition of elites is necessarily the most comprehensive one

Well it would've been helpful if you had started off by saying you don't agree with the op's defintion of elites, as this was what I was engaging with!

I think there's a sliding scale here: I don't think darra's "plummy toned riched southside boys from private schools" necessarily hold the extent of power you describe, but they're still pretty clearly elites to me. What level of ultra wealthy are we talking here to qualify as an elite?

fwiw my point is absolutley NOT that the super rich don't actively work towards maintaining their power or that they're innocent lambs caught in a systemic situation they cannot influence - my point is that elites consciously deciding not to do this wouldn't remove the power and, as such, the problem, so meditating on the moral rectitude of individuals seems like a dead end to me.

Just jumping in to say you don’t have to live in NYC to write for the New York Times

To have a good time (no, no)

"in conclusion have you heard of davos?"

Good point - if he wasn't an elite, he would have never invented the Daleks.

most people are good and i'm sure that's true for elites. the problem is that when the divide between elite income and every one else is so vast that it becomes self-perpetuating. one particularly horrible outcome is that it has made the elites create a mostly artificial, performative (yet, for all that, fierce) divide amongst the populace, so that not only can they not legislate against the elites, they barely even acknowledge one another. it's a perfect system while it lasts. for the elites, anyway.

"Well it would've been helpful if you had started off by saying you don't agree with the op's defintion of elites, as this was what I was engaging with!"

to be fair, in the rest of my post i did try to think explicitly about the specific example of nyt journalists so I'm not sure how relevant this is particularly as I was playing on your ground or w/e?

"lol it is not the line of least resistance to work for the NYTimes - it is the line of least resistance to espouse pro-wealthy views, both because of the direct and indirect pressures you list and because pro-wealth rhetoric is endemic to American society."

I'm not really sure what you're saying here:
1: That to become a NYT journalist the easiest thing is to be pro-wealth, status quo etc? The argument I was trying to make is that this is just one aspect of reaching this position and that we could also consider all the other difficulties and barriers to getting this position and the various effort and privilege necessary to this end. My argument here is that the path of least resistance here relies on very partial framing. One might also say that it requires the view that journalism is noble or a prestigious profession, that one is uniquely talented or driven etc and this may be combined with working incredibly hard and/or leveraging whatever personal connections you have etc etc. Ultimately being in a position as a top journalist in a world famous newspaper, espousing views that buttress the conventional values that affirm established orders of political power that contains, among many other things, the basis of the prestige of your own position and your relationship or access to other powerful actors. Arriving at this position involves navigating lines of 'least resistance' and 'most resistance' and I don't accept the framing that sees only one of these as relevant.

2: Or are you saying that it is more generally the line of least resistance and to hold these views, and that this is simply the case more broadly (without particular pertinance to the example of the nyt writer)? This is probably true, but it elides why this might be the case, and I would argue that a media culture sponsored by and thus resting on the implicit or explicit permission of powerful and wealthy owners and executives might be fairly decisive in shaping these views.

Maybe I've misunderstood you but it does feel like the common thread in your argument is to evacuate questions of agency because they can't have total explanatory weight but to me this seems like its just as wrongheaded as ignoring structural factors because they cannot be said to be entirely deterministic (they can't!). However, just as we can see that certain structural factors are more consequential towards specific outcomes (ie. racism and police violence or poverty and health outcomes) they also in certain instances amplify individuals capacity to exert agency.

"fwiw my point is absolutley NOT that the super rich don't actively work towards maintaining their power or that they're innocent lambs caught in a systemic situation they cannot influence - my point is that elites consciously deciding not to do this wouldn't remove the power and, as such, the problem, so meditating on the moral rectitude of individuals seems like a dead end to me."

My point in "meditating on the"moral rectitude" of individuals was not to point out hypocrisy but to note that historically moralistic discourses often accompany quite brutal regimes of dispossession and colonial enterprise. when one notes how the alarming acceleration of inequality globally is counterintuitively presided over an elite class supposedly guided by the highest of charitable principles it does make one rather suspicious and consider the role of these discourses in this global order.

Your point about "elites consciously deciding not to do this wouldn't remove the power and, as such, the problem" I have to say I have no idea what you are on about as I think a) whether or not they 'consciously' do this is pretty moot (as I explained above) and b) I think its pretty unknowable what the effect would be if the entire ruling class did consciously attempt to divest themselves of power, although I imagine it would be pretty consequential. I do think that this is pretty unthinkable anyway and my sense is that this, in itself, is somewhat illuminating.

That to become a NYT journalist the easiest thing is to be pro-wealth, status quo etc? The argument I was trying to make is that this is just one aspect of reaching this position and that we could also consider all the other difficulties and barriers to getting this position and the various effort and privilege necessary to this end.

Yes, absolutely. Yer average NYT columnist is likely to come from a reasonably privileged background in order to be able to attain this position - thus jaymc's framing of these people as "elites", though again by your definition they don't really qualify. I was saying that people who come from these backgrounds and move in these circles are likely to espouse these view, and I don't think that's down entirely to pressure from the capitalist who owns the paper (though I'm sure he doesn't mind); and that, owing to their background, they should be read critically even if they're espousing the opposite. Anything to disagree with there?

One might also say that it requires the view that journalism is noble or a prestigious profession, that one is uniquely talented or driven etc and this may be combined with working incredibly hard and/or leveraging whatever personal connections you have etc etc

I studied journalism so I would definitley not say any of that shite.

Maybe I've misunderstood you but it does feel like the common thread in your argument is to evacuate questions of agency because they can't have total explanatory weight but to me this seems like its just as wrongheaded as ignoring structural factors because they cannot be said to be entirely deterministic (they can't!).

Not quite sure I understand your summing up of my argument here - I don't think individual agency is a myth or anything, or that people aren't responsible for their actions. What I do think is that the most effective ways of combating inequality are structural (legal, political, fiscal) and so the question of what a "good elite" would look like is besides the point, because even an elite who is doing their utmost not to use their influence for personal gain still holds that power - but we could take that power away!

My point in "meditating on the"moral rectitude" of individuals was not to point out hypocrisy but to note that historically moralistic discourses often accompany quite brutal regimes of dispossession and colonial enterprise. when one notes how the alarming acceleration of inequality globally is counterintuitively presided over an elite class supposedly guided by the highest of charitable principles it does make one rather suspicious and consider the role of these discourses in this global order.

Really nothing to disagree with there, with the same addenda I gave above - an elite that doesn't pretend to this type of discourse is still an elite. I'm not saying don't let's be beastly to Bill Gates, I'm just saying that structural changes are the way to go to about changing things, trying to sort billionaires into good guys and bad guys is a vain effort.

have to say I have no idea what you are on about as I think a) whether or not they 'consciously' do this is pretty moot (as I explained above)

Can something that isn't conscious be considered a question of individual agency?

yes?

pic.twitter.com/E9BpTIvgR7

— jun (@whoiszhu) April 28, 2021

but structures have to come from somewhere, and the domains you single out (legal, political, fiscal) are heavily prey to outsized influence by an elite class that has been very successful in consolidating their power.

I guess ultimately this will go around in circles because the notion of elitism is somewhat tautologous in the sense that it makes little sense to talk about some hypothetical 'passive elite'. even if we accept this as a definitional category who do we recognise as such given that the notion of elite is predicated on prestige and influence and consequently joined to the exercise of power? In this instance we can surely say whether or not we think the influence of this class of people is 'good' or 'bad' and should be challenged? Not least because challenging the structures that powerful elites derive their power from will necessitate understanding the interests defended by an (increasingly concentrated) class of people. If we are serious about wanting to "take that power away" this is something that will unavoidably be encountered, not least because structures do not simply act on their own.

Moreover, I don't think its entirely irrelevant to suppose that access to elite class might also be predicated on many ethical or moral compromises that many of us would simply not want to take. Its not simply the case that those at the top have passively gotten there either. And given what we might say about politics or business being pretty grubby, we might presume that the elite class is also largely populated by some pretty ruthless people. For anyone who is highly critical of military intervention or corporate malfeasance for eg, the disconnect between the grubby workings of many of these 'structural' domains and the celebration of its key players in our culture is seen by many an important myth that needs to be punctured as part of any effort to challenge structural inequalities.

Bad by default, it seems.

...did you just come to this conclusion? I thought that was your position from the start.

I guess this is probably just a smug "see?" post re Bill Gates.

Bill Gates acknowledged that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was “a huge mistake” in an interview on CNN. The Microsoft founder also said that his divorce, which became final this week, was “a very sad milestone.”https://t.co/Pbg5hRh92A

— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 5, 2021

We don’t have to give these guys credits whenever they show a modicum of humanity