America: Pluralist or Elitist?

Insigna · August 31, 2003, 15:35

What do you think?

BeBro · August 31, 2003, 15:37

Yes.

Inverse Icarus · August 31, 2003, 15:58

Elitist. America is a Gracious Plutocracy.

Inverse Icarus · August 31, 2003, 15:59

America is a “Generous Plutocracy”.

That’s the term I coined for it. Patent pending. America, in my eyes, is simply and completely ruled by the rich upper class. The “generous” part comes from the fact that the rich upper class gives the rest of the country anything they want, as long as it does not directly interfere with the rich’s lifestyle, affluence, or personal affairs. The rich tend to take care of their own, and the richer people tend to be higher up on the political chain.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 16:00

Elitism is terrific if you're one of the elite.

Elok · August 31, 2003, 16:00

Why can't we be both, and all be innately superior to the euro-trash together?

Ted Striker · August 31, 2003, 16:02

bad azzist

Odin · August 31, 2003, 16:09

The US is a Corporate Republic; the politicians only do the bidding of thier corporate masters. That is why Ken Lay isn't in jail yet and we went into Iraq. The elections only give the apearance of democracy, but the two parties are basically ruled by the corporations and draconian rules make sure more progressive parties do not gain power.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 16:10

Hey Uber, got a question for you. I've always believed in individual achievement and the rewards that go with it, while I know you prefer a more socialist system. My contention is that an individual won't strive for excellence if the reward benefits the group more than the excelling individual, because organisms are inherently selfish. I know you've said we should try to eliminate greed via education, indoctrination, etc. I think that's very unlikely to ever happen.

So, within the social system you think would be optimal, can you think of a way to provide an exceptional and exceptionally achieving individual with, in addition to the group reward as a result of the achievement, a personal reward that is not money/property-based? Something that will be theirs, that they can give away if they wish but can keep if they wish, that will fill the material-possesion void?

Dinner · August 31, 2003, 16:11

I just love how high school kids always are 100% sure they know exactly how the world works without any self doubt.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 16:12

Originally posted by Oerdin
I just love how high school kids always are 100% sure they know exactly how the world works without any self doubt.

Who was that aimed at?

Odin · August 31, 2003, 16:13

Originally posted by Oerdin
I just love how high school kids always are 100% sure they know exactly how the world works without any self doubt.

Young people are more open minded than older people.

JohnT · August 31, 2003, 16:17

Originally posted by Uber KruX
America is a “Generous Plutocracy”.

That’s the term I coined for it. Patent pending. America, in my eyes, is simply and completely ruled by the rich upper class. The “generous” part comes from the fact that the rich upper class gives the rest of the country anything they want, as long as it does not directly interfere with the rich’s lifestyle, affluence, or personal affairs. The rich tend to take care of their own, and the richer people tend to be higher up on the political chain.

The only problem with ideas like these, especially in application in America, is that it makes the erroneous assumption that there is a static group of individuals and/or families that have been, are, and will always be "rich."

Problem is, that isn't so. Forbes has been doing their "Forbes XXX" (the number has changed over the years) of the richest Americans since 1918 (here's the first list) and a comparison between that list and the most recent disproves your theory. The only names among the top-10 "protected" of 1918 that appear on the most recent list is Rockefeller (#1 and #5 in 1918, #s 67, 131, and 167 in 2002) and Ford (#8 in 1918, #277 currently). If you extend the comparison another 10 slots, the only only name that is familiar is "Charles Schwab" whom, at best, is a distant relation to the one that is alive today.

And as far as the "political chain" is concerned it seems to me that the thing that gives one a decisive advantage over another is attendance at an Ivy League University (especially Harvard and Yale), something that is accomplished by many poor and middle class students each year.

Regardless, the point is that the rich who are "controlling" America cannot be the same rich who "controlled" America in the past because the freakin' relative advantages between them have changed so drastically. You really want to argue that it is the descendents of John Jacob Astor and Andrew Carnegie who is whipping and driving American economic and political policy more than Larry Ellison, the Walton family, and Steve Jobs? (as you claim) Puh-leeze.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 16:24

While the greatest opportunities for socio-economic mobility are in the US, there is a fair degree of protectionism among the affluent and rich. I work in the Hamptons, and have been around wealthy folks, and there is a strong it's-who-you-know 'ethic' at work. It's certainly not an ironclad rule, and rich folks do like to screw each other at times, but there is as much a sense of fraternity/sorority among the financial elite as there is among the educated elite (often the same group), or among any cultural/religious/ethnic clique. Tribalism still runs rampant in the human psyche, no matter your position in the social hierarchy (although it is true that the more educated you are, generally the more open you are to others and other perspectives).

JohnT · August 31, 2003, 16:27

Well, of course part of success "who you know." Smarter men then me have noted that "no man is an island", so if you are rather uncommunicative than people won't be inclined to help you. Don't forget it also works the other way around: part of success is who knows you. Do nothing to get noticed and remain unnoticed. C'est la vie.

But the value of the help isn't enough to keep YOU on top of the food chain, regardless of how it looks from our relatively "impoverished" view.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 16:41

I'm a capitalist, JohnT. I believe in a persons right to pursue wealth and their right to preserve it. So, I'm not arguing against your point.

I'm merely saying that I've been around wealthy people, and this sort of 'tribal' protectionism is something I've definitely observed. It exists to a much lesser degree among principled people (like my boss, for the most part, who donated his inheritance to charities and worked to build his own business) and much higher degree among scummy rich folks (like my friend's boss, a thoroughly unprincipled a$$hole real estate agent).

But I also praise Americas opportunities for mobility (always have) and your mention of the Forbes list amply demonstrates this.