“Elite” is one of the most contested keywords of our current epoch. A “keyword,” as Raymond Williams defines it, is a piece of vocabulary that, due to a complex history or sudden shifts in meaning over time, raises problems and difficulties every time it is used. A keyword can have positive associations (or a transparently obvious meaning) for one group of language users, while another simultaneously hears in it a cliche, a muddled abstraction, a threat, or an insult.
This was a good read. The term “elite” so often conjures up some power at the helm, a place of privilege, but in truth many prospective elites today often live precariously and are chronically underemployed.
BTW on a related note, maybe you have read my previous piece on elite overproduction in Czarist Russia? It documents a similar trend which undid the empire - the outgrowth of nihilism from elite overproduction and Czardom’s inability to absorb a growing, educated underclass.
But unlike in Czarist Russia, today’s overproduced elites are creating social positions for themselves en masse through appeals to politics & management - and the liberal language they use serves as a kind of social sorting, so individuals can stand out as an aspirant in this highly-competitive area. It’s really an etiquette, as Sam Kriss mentioned in his recent diagnosis of “woke-ism” which I tend to agree with.
But anyway, I especially like this bit in your essay: Alvin Goulder’s claim that the new class is “leftist” and opposed to capital simply because it wants intellectuals (ie the managerial state) to replace capital. Like a true Marxist, Goulder understands one’s social position reveals one’s real political demands, not moral appeals.
Somewhat related, but this mode of critique was made even earlier in Communist-aligned states - that the Party (ie intellectuals) had replaced capital. In the fmr. USSR, this group is loosely called the nomenklatura, but the most pressing critique came from Yugoslavia by Milovan Djilas who wrote of a “new class” some 20 years before Goulder. His book A New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System came out in 1957 and investigates how this new group has anointed themselves, replacing capital with a self-enriching and growing cadre within the state.
The woke ascendency has indeed been highly successful in reorienting the new class towards loyalty towards the corporate structure, and has furthermore led to much finer-grained control over the workforce and population. This is at the expense of increased costs, greater alienation from the bulk of society, reduced efficiency, and declining technical innovation, all of which is leading to a precipitous decline in Western power on the global stage as well as a cratering material standard of living at home. As a stable long term solution it is greatly wanting.
This is very compelling. Dare I suggest a different term, to replace 'elites'? One that takes account of the self-conscious morality and victimhood exemplified by these 'tastemakers' or 'influencers'. And the proto-religious quality of their ideology. It's a term that will never catch on, because it too falls foul of a 'whatever you mean by x' problem.
But they seem, to me, to be a form of priest class.
I wrote, some time ago, that Wokeism's greatest strength is its wraith-like quality. Push back and it dissolves and reforms in roughly the shape it was before, unharmed.
What are these people if not the new Priest class?
Apr 26, 2023·edited Apr 29, 2023Liked by ghostofchristo1
To "diversity", "inclusion" "hate" and "the climate emergency" might be added "mental health" which will (in principle) allow a huge addition of credentialed workers who have a vast store of CDC readily available.
EDIT I missed "safety". Keeping people "safe" against unspecified risks. This is becoming dominant in UK with sometimes awful results
This was a good read. The term “elite” so often conjures up some power at the helm, a place of privilege, but in truth many prospective elites today often live precariously and are chronically underemployed.
BTW on a related note, maybe you have read my previous piece on elite overproduction in Czarist Russia? It documents a similar trend which undid the empire - the outgrowth of nihilism from elite overproduction and Czardom’s inability to absorb a growing, educated underclass.
https://novum.substack.com/p/elite-overproduction-a-story-of-russia
But unlike in Czarist Russia, today’s overproduced elites are creating social positions for themselves en masse through appeals to politics & management - and the liberal language they use serves as a kind of social sorting, so individuals can stand out as an aspirant in this highly-competitive area. It’s really an etiquette, as Sam Kriss mentioned in his recent diagnosis of “woke-ism” which I tend to agree with.
But anyway, I especially like this bit in your essay: Alvin Goulder’s claim that the new class is “leftist” and opposed to capital simply because it wants intellectuals (ie the managerial state) to replace capital. Like a true Marxist, Goulder understands one’s social position reveals one’s real political demands, not moral appeals.
Somewhat related, but this mode of critique was made even earlier in Communist-aligned states - that the Party (ie intellectuals) had replaced capital. In the fmr. USSR, this group is loosely called the nomenklatura, but the most pressing critique came from Yugoslavia by Milovan Djilas who wrote of a “new class” some 20 years before Goulder. His book A New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System came out in 1957 and investigates how this new group has anointed themselves, replacing capital with a self-enriching and growing cadre within the state.
The woke ascendency has indeed been highly successful in reorienting the new class towards loyalty towards the corporate structure, and has furthermore led to much finer-grained control over the workforce and population. This is at the expense of increased costs, greater alienation from the bulk of society, reduced efficiency, and declining technical innovation, all of which is leading to a precipitous decline in Western power on the global stage as well as a cratering material standard of living at home. As a stable long term solution it is greatly wanting.
This is very compelling. Dare I suggest a different term, to replace 'elites'? One that takes account of the self-conscious morality and victimhood exemplified by these 'tastemakers' or 'influencers'. And the proto-religious quality of their ideology. It's a term that will never catch on, because it too falls foul of a 'whatever you mean by x' problem.
But they seem, to me, to be a form of priest class.
I wrote, some time ago, that Wokeism's greatest strength is its wraith-like quality. Push back and it dissolves and reforms in roughly the shape it was before, unharmed.
What are these people if not the new Priest class?
To "diversity", "inclusion" "hate" and "the climate emergency" might be added "mental health" which will (in principle) allow a huge addition of credentialed workers who have a vast store of CDC readily available.
EDIT I missed "safety". Keeping people "safe" against unspecified risks. This is becoming dominant in UK with sometimes awful results
Another great piece but damn those bib books are expensive.