Elitism and Egalitarianism

It has come to my attention that a certain thinker has recently exposed the merits of elitism and the evils of idealistic egalitarianism. He believes that it is perfectly fine for society to hold a single group of people above all others. Now, I am not suggesting that one cannot trust an individual as having more weight in a specific field than others upon considering her/his background, that is a matter of subjectivity. Rather, I believe that there is an inherent danger in supposing that a single group in society can be given priority or unbridled power within a given field, insofar as that group will be provided with the opportunity to abuse that power to their own ends. We have seen this throughout history, in the absolute monarchies of Europe – where a single group was believed to have a “divine right” to govern every aspect of their fellow humans’ lives – and, more recently, in the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (yes, I am using the USSR to exemplify the flaws of elitism, not egalitarianism as my friend has inappropriately noted) – where a single race, the so-called Aryans, were described as the “master race” and provided with a mandate to rule; and where the proletarian revolutionaries were noted for being the only holders of “the truth”, and thus given absolute bureaucratic power, respectively.

It is difficult to see how anyone could honestly support the ideal of elitism, when it has spawned such horrific regimes as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Is it really OK for us to give up our rights and our beliefs to a group of people who tell us that they are better than us, and therefore deserve our adoration and undying trust? In every instance where one group has been provided with unfettered power over the rest of the population, it has resulted in the exploitation of those who were not part of the ruling group. Elitism is at the root of this exploitation, and to support the ideals of elitism is to prolong, and, in most instances, worsen the inequalities within society.

Now, this distinguished member of the “intelligentsia” has argued that elitism is a natural aspect of the human condition, as he believes that the doctrine of “survival of the fittest”, as applicable to nature, is also applicable to human society, in justifying the elitist and discriminatory attitudes of the “elite”. While the survival of the fittest may have held true to humanity in the past, insofar as nature once had the power to kill off those humans who were too weak to exist, advances in medicine have allowed us to overcome our shortcomings, and essentially defeat the doctrine of “survival of the fittest” within human society. This is one of the defining traits of humanity: the ability to adapt our environment to suit our needs and values. And while humans may be capable of great selfishness and greed, as my good friend has quite depressingly highlighted, humans are also capable of great compassion and empathy, which is unrivalled in nature. Hence, we have sought ways to allow all humans to live full lives through advances in medicine, and now, babies who have undergone only thirteen weeks of gestation can lead complete, healthy lives where they once would have perished if they were born as little as ten years ago. If we, as humans, are able to defeat even the inequality of the natural law of “survival of the fittest”, then there is no reason why we cannot overcome the societal inequality enforced by elitism, which is merely a non-physical construct of the mind.

He has also attempted to provide justification for the elitist mindset by arguing that democracy, our most preferred form of government, is an inherently elitist system of government. I will digress that, at least through a dialectical analysis of parliamentary democracy, it is democracy in form, but dictatorship in content. I recognise that parliamentary democracy will never provide society with absolute equality in terms of the power which each individual holds over how the state is governed. But democracy is definitely the most desirable form of government, when compared with the other options, aristocracy and (worst of all) autocracy, at least in providing people with the equal opportunity to determine how their country will be governed. To take a page out of Churchill’s book (once again): “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” To argue that voters elect people in an elitist fashion, that is to say, based on the perceived superiority of the social group the politician belongs to, is to ignore the fundamental ideal of democratic elections, which is to provide voters with equal power to elect someone who best represents the values and requirements of the voter.

To use a Rousseauesque term, democracy provides for the best expression of the general will. The general will is the commitment of the entirety of a populace to the good of all alike. That is not to say that humans are not selfish and do not have sectional interests, but rather, the general will is a mutual interest to protect the individual from the masses. All social groups, be they “elite” or not, share the general will, and it is only democratic government which can sustain and represent the general will. In this way, democracy is in no way elitist, in that it provides for government by the majority, and the “elite” is, by definition, a minority. Now, I must digress once again, and recognise that the “elite” can hold more power within a democracy than what is normally provided to the ordinary citizen, but this is due to a corruption of the democratic system, rather than because of some lingering strain of elitism in the democratic process. The reign of populist ideology within the two-party democracies of modern states is a tragedy, but even in the face of populism, equality, not elitism, remains at the heart of the democratic process. Again, I must draw attention to another of humanity’s accomplishments in the form of the establishment of democratic governments, something which even Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the champion of equal rights, could not dream of, in stating “If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men.” This is an illustration of humanity’s achievements towards greater equality, and our mutual pursuit of this goal this is all the more evident today in the revolutions of the people of the Middle East to achieve democracy in their respective autocratic regimes. To argue that their collective desire for equal opportunities in deciding how their country is run is, in essence, an elitist desire is to be absolutely ignorant of the reality of their plight under the yoke of elitist governments.

Our intelligent, but misguided young “intelligentsia” has rightly pointed out that there has never been a truly “egalitarian” society in the history of humanity. To state that egalitarianism has given rise to such horrid states as the USSR and the PRC is simply false, the USSR and the PRC were created by elitist revolutionaries who believed that they were the only social group who held the “truth” of class consciousness. Whether or not the USSR and the PRC were ever actual socialist states (or were even capable of becoming socialist states) is a debate beyond the scope of this discourse. Those two states have probably done irrevocably worse for the cause of egalitarianism than any other incidents in human history. But their failure as twisted social experiments of the Bolsheviks and Maoists does not mean that humanity should lose faith in the egalitarian cause. Just because we have failed in the past does not mean that we will not succeed in the future. To argue that, because of the failure of socialism in the 20^th Century and the resurgence of discrimination in developed societies in the 21^st Century, we should abandon egalitarianism in favour of elitism is to be embrace sheer defeatism.  And this is what surprises me most about the ideals of this admirably hard working and persistent young man. I cannot understand how he can adopt such a fatalistic ideal as to believe that the vast majority of humanity will inevitably fall prey to exploitation by the “elite”. Instead of arguing for the merits of a divided, classed society, we should instead be devoting our mental efforts to supporting the attempts of genuinely popular revolutionaries to establish more equal societies, because it is their goals which are truly the most admirable in this world. Such are the goals of the popular revolutions of the Middle East, where there is no Robespierre or Trotsky covertly directing the general will according to elitist ambitions. To the author in question, I suggest you reconsider your elitism when applying your ideology to the world stage.

To claim that egalitarianism is inherently flawed because texts which endorse egalitarian ideals are hypocritical, e.g. the Bible is a moot point. I have personally already rejected the Bible as a determinant of human morality and thought, precisely because it is so riddled with hypocrisies. But, from my education in liberal and socialist ideals, I have settled upon egalitarianism as the ideology which has the most potential to benefit all of humankind. Our “elite” friend may be correct in believing that “egalitarianism will rule once hell freezes over" but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to achieve it. Egalitarianism is not "a belief that most people wish to believe in", it is an ideal which the vast majority of the downtrodden and the disenfranchised genuinely do believe in. We have already made so much progress towards equality; both in the medical/scientific field and in our socio-political environment. To stop and revert to elitist beliefs and allow recent trends of growing disparity to continue would be a travesty against the journey of humanity towards a more equal future. Even if we never do achieve absolute equality, we should never stop believing in the pursuit of greater equality, because if we ever do stop believing, we surrender ourselves to the discrimination, the oppression, and the terror which elitism entails.

Suggested Readings:

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques – The Social Contract

I recommend this to anyone who wants to gain an understanding of how a society is constructed, as perceived by an Enlightenment philosophe.

Marx, Karl – The Communist Manifesto

Everybody should read this to understand how our world of rampant global capitalism came about, and to learn about one of the alternatives to our current economic base, as advocated by Karl Marx. If you’re going to go about criticising communism due to the practices of the USSR and PRC, I suggest you read this before you go about labelling their societies as “communist”.

Service, Robert – Trotsky

This is a lengthy biography, but a great read. If you want a detailed explanation of why the Bolsheviks were actually elitist in their beliefs, I suggest you read Service’s explanation of their ideas about the “revolutionary elite” who would lead the Revolution. Starff, this guy basically ruins your argument that the governments of the USSR and the PRC were egalitarian in essence, even though their long, long, long-term goals may have been egalitarian.