Re: Elitism and Egalitarianism

It has come to my attention that a certain thinker has recently exposed the faults of of elitism and merits of ideological egalitarianism. I would like to clarify that I personally do not support elitism in the fact that elites only benefit themselves. Instead we should acknowledge that society has structured itself in a way that there are a certain group of people who are smarter, more knowledgeable or even more interested in social issues.
(Lets face it the majority of the population cares more about what new dress Paris Hilton is wearing or how the injury to Greg Inglis will affect the game on the weekend). But now to deconstructing his comments:

One of the Irishman's arguments is that humans have evolved to a level where "survival of the fittest" is no longer applicable to social evolution. Here he has misunderstood the argument, which should be reworded as "survival of the smartest." In this new and globalised world the main asset that we have to separate ourselves is our education. The ability to synthesise information, apply new knowledge and relate it to others is the key to social progress in our new world. Here in Australia we are blessed with great education system that combines both information processing along with analytical and critical skills. Children have access to free public education (paid for through taxes of course), great teachers and the ability to access higher education such as university. However there are those that take advantage of these opportunities, many who come from migrant backgrounds and whose parents sacrificed much in order to make it easier for their children and then there are others who feel no affinity to school, books or any sort of structured learning. Instead they may believe that image, popularity and pursuing the opposite sex is far more important than their education. Nobody can exactly forecast the future social class or income bracket that these two prospective people fall into. However on average people with a university degree have on average 3 times more earning power than people with a high school education. This is where the crux of matter falls. If we live in an egalitarian society then if we are born equal when do we stop being equal?
Is it at the start of high school when one student attends a selective high school and the other a local comprehensive high school.?
Is it when one attends university whilst the other begins an low skilled or medium skilled job?
Is it when both have children and begin to raise their children in their own respective ways?
Is it when their own respective children start to attend school? One to a private school another to a local primary (nothing being wrong with that)

This links with my next subject and that is in a perfectly egalitarian society what motivates us? Here the G-man has pointed out that recent experiments in communism or socialist societies have failed i.e Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. He has pointed out quite rightly that these societies have never achieved the holy grail of communism an egalitarian anarchy. In a perfectly equal society what motivations do I have to pursue goals? To be honest we as animals are engineered to recreate ourselves and ensure the continuation of our specific DNA in the population pool. In ancient societies it was those who could hunt, gather and organise the best that were the most successful. Now that has increasingly been replaced by those who can learn, work and apply themselves and essentially earn money, which helps them put their offspring at an advantage. If we are permanently held to be the same as everyone else what motivation do we have to improve ourselves. What motivation does John from Kirawee have to go to university and  spend 6 years of his life to write a PhD thesis on urban dynamics when in a egalitarian society John from Woy Woy's views on late trains should be held in the same esteem?

He has also put forward that democracy is essentially egalitarian and that politicians are there to serve the voters. Although usually true I would suggest that politician's have much more power than the common person in shaping public thought and opinion. Politcians are the ones who convince the common voter that somehow 1% of "illegal refugees" that arrive by boat are "overrunning our borders." They are the ones who convince people that the carbon tax will cost $600 per year for an average household on figures that they themselves created. It is the willingness of the common masses to be led like sheep to their pen of public thought. And here it is revealed that democracy is inherently elitist.

Last year as the government debated to Mining Tax there was one of the most farcical and comical displays of elites herding the sheeple. The mining companies, their executives, their advertising company and a few common "battlers" in WA ( some who earn 4 times the national average income) convinced the rest of Australia that this new mining tax was going to destroy the country. This change of public sentiment help bring about the downfall of a first term Prime Minister and a complete backdown by the successor and now $60B stolen from the rest of the public. I salute the mining companies, in a capitalist society they successfully protected their own interests
Democracy are groups of elites fighting over a populace that knows nothing or often doesn't care about the issues. This is my most important point. Although the 6 pack's great arguments draw heavily upon classical writers and philosophers ( which demonstrate his superior knowledge- an elitist expression in itself) most people do not care about Rosseau, Karl Marx's Das Kapital or allocative efficiency they just see jobs outsourced to China and India.

The reason that most of the downtrodden, disenfranchised support egalitarianism is because they are the ones who stand to benefit most. So in itself egalitarianism is elitism for the poorer and lower classes. Egalitarianism is what politician's pull out when they want to smother their speeches in a oily layer of mother hood statements and then proceed to butter it up because guess what: It's what makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Everyone at President Obama's victory speech felt equal for those 13 minutes and they went to sleep feeling nice and comforted but they awoke to the same day as yesterday (90% of the iceberg was still under water) and they'll awake to the same situation everyday until a time where we transcend out human qualities where we thus lose our own humanity : P


I suggest some reading:

The Economist Debates: "Do the elite serve the masses." Whilst not technically about what we're discussing the debate draws interesting questions about how society is structured. Specifically note the featured guest article by Peter Saunders.

The Economist Special Reports: "The Few" January 22nd 2011
-------  "The Rise and Rise of the Cognitive Elite"
            "They Work for Us"