|
|
|
|
|
|
by liamconnell
1174 days ago
|
|
|
If you study history you’ll notice that groups and their leaders are rising and falling, conquering and pillaging and then losing it all. The world is too dynamic for your reductive theory to fit in. Elites compete with each other. They don’t sing kumbaya and cooperatively share the keys to power. |
|
|
There is very little social mobility, wealth transfers very solidly between generations at the absolute top and organisation around PR and Politics is tightly integrated in this class.
Off course you can always fall from grace, but that does not in any way diminish the collective power of this class. That's why it's called a class and not a "person" or one singular family or group of people that clownish conspiracy theories would have you believe.
A good primer to the historical context could be this new book from Cambridge: "The Power of Ritual in Prehistory: Secret Societies and Origins of Social Complexity".
Elites have always formed tightly knit clubs that most couldn't get into.
This is not a reductive theory, it's based on solid academic research on wealth transfer and academic books like the one above.
It's a almost like a biological or physical property of advanced civilizations - like social patterns seen emerging in larger groups of monkeys, or a precursor to the labour divisions seen in ant hives - there's clear distinctions set fourth for an individual at birth or because of location or family, and no amount of ideology is able to change this unless very, very lucky - this is mirrored in the social mobility data.