Human beings set very high standards for morality, conduct, and achievements, but yet despite all of the compliance that self-assured citizens and nations boast of, we can find a great deal of failure and hypocrisy. Morally, anyone in the middle and upper classes should be ashamed to live their comfortable or even ostentatious lifestyles while masses of people at home and abroad live in unspeakable poverty. Politically, we find that democracy, still the rage, produces masses of squabbling politicians and bureaucrats propagating similarly unspeakable corruption and inefficiency—this is government of the people, mind you. And, finally, of intelligence, all one needs to do is to observe the ranks of unmotivated, practically uneducated students swarming schools at all levels. Let us refrain from further evidence of times present and past, and simply say that man is a yahoo, in the sense that Swift intended—a licentious, avaricious, cruel, and vile brute. And yet, in the greatest error of the modern era, we make these creatures sovereign, and masters of their fate, as well as the fate of the human race.
In order to create a truly harmonious society, power must be structured by the capacity to govern, acknowledging that all men are not created equally. In the course of human reproduction, most men and woman born will be of the lowest class of individuals. In poor and rich nations alike, they participate in the labor intensive-work; they are the peasants, the serfs, and the proletariat. Lacking the intellect and perception of the other classes, the low class is a crude bunch of people. Just above the low class is the middle class, a group marked by a capacity to understand and execute but not lead or plan. These individuals of the middle class come in fewer numbers then the low class. Then, by far the smallest is the high class. These people have the talent of leadership and genius in the affairs that concern them, accompanied by a virtuousness that does not grace any other class.
It comes not only as a natural consequence, but as a natural necessity for the strong to rule over the weak. If all the classes were empowered equally, then chaos would result. The unintelligent masses, subject to the whim, would overwhelm a representative government with politicians that were corrupt and deceptive in order to gain power or politicians that represented the misplaced priorities of the low class. Human progress—indeed, the even the security of that progress—could be jeopardized by the corrupting influence of the low class. But if the strong should rule the weak, the high class would make enlightened decisions and planning to be executed by a competent middle class bureaucracy. With the centralized planning and absence of cumbersome opposition, the ruling elite could easily allow massive leaps in our progress as a race.
We, the human race, has been striving for liberty and equality for centuries—but with the gross inequalities now—with poverty, suppression, racism even in these great times for democratic ideals, we may suspect that these ideals have failed us. Perhaps the prosperity and well-being of mankind will not lie in archaic notions of freedom and equality—perhaps it is the inequitable distribution of power, where those most fit to lead do lead, is to be the savior of mankind.
3 comments:
Dibs!
"Man is a yahoo?" If so, what other species should be entrusted with their survival and, begging your pardon, why ought I listen to you, another of those "licentious, avaricious, cruel, and vile brutes?" I agree some men are yahoos, and quite astounding ones at that, but I wouldn't say in general that man is a yahoo. Certainly not the two of us, at least.
Back on topic, you make a valid point regarding the examples of prior history and conduct. The argument does seem logical that the most fit should rule, and that all men are not born equal to each other. If the greatest were to rule, and the wisest, certainly a better society could be reached. And I completely agree that the lower class is especially vulnerable to corrupt ideas and movements. However, there are a few points I must bring up in opposition:
You assume that, by defining the upper class as those most capable of leading, those politicians would be free of corruption and move toward the betterment of all mankind. That's more of an ideal form argument, and, as history shows that absolute power corrupts absolutely, there is no way of ensuring this high moral standard remians constant during a leader's life.
You claim that, without the uneducated lower classes to oppose them, the upper class should be able to lead accurately and quickly. You do not think there would ever be disagreement between two politicians? No Snowball and Napoleon? If you do admit this, wouldn't a monarchy or dictatorship be better, according to the facilitated leadership argument?
You mention in your first paragraph that "anyone in the upper or middle classes should be ashamed to live their comfortable or even ostentatious lifestyles." Doesn't this system of oligarchy promote and perpetuate such an injustice? Additionally, must ALL people be ashamed at their comfortable lives? Is it not possible some are making efforts on behalf of the poor, using their power positively, or perhaps even, as your upper-class argument suggests, have earned that right to be in the upper class?
How does one shift between classes, if this is at all possible? Though men are not created equal, surely it is possible for some to be made equal? Or is the assumption that the product of a lower-class couple cannot possibly be deserving of a higher station? Couldn't some great minds with humble origins be bypassed as they are not able to obtain a better lifestyle or education?
You mention that the upper class has "a virtuousness that does not grace any other class," and allude to the dangers of an uninformed lower class. Might this slant in power result in the overrun of the righteous upper class, judging by history's numerous revolutions and the fact that the lower class, in this argument, has less morals than the upper? If so, how would you suggest the upper class stay in control? And, is that method of holding power corruption-proof, from the inside and outside?
Again, I agree with what you're getting at, but there are some critical issues to consider. Human nature, as you stated, seems unreliably unpredictable and fluid. You state that man cannot be trusted, yet support an oligarchy of the best persons ruling. Who is the best? How are they found? Additionally, what about our society? Though we are certainly not ruled by the best, and several idiots abound in politics, are we not, to a degree, ruled by an upper class of political overlords, whose business ties and strings of corruption forge some type of oligarchy of its own? Though better minds would be needed, would intellect and morals alone fix this system based on what we already see?
Why should you listen to me? I could be a groveling sans-culotte, or I might be a member of The Chosen Elite--I have no ethos to begin with. In order to evaluate my argument, then, you must look to my logos and pathos appeals. As for my generalization that men are yahoos, we could say that all men are yahoos, but some more brutish than others. We cannot escape our humanity.
You need to remember that this is not a blueprint for the ideal state, but rather a statement of principles. For example, methods through which the oligarchs would be selected and the measures of population control would not be included in a broad statement of principles. I happen to favor Oceania’s selection process for inner and outer party members, so that any member of any class could theoretically jump from one class to another. I also think that a brutal police state, like in Oceania, might be able to suppress almost all dissent and revolts. Regardless of the methods, however, the concept behind this post is that the ideal state would be ruled by an oligarchy of the wisest people of the most solid integrity--they are the elite in that sense.
This leads me to another point. When I made the point in the first paragraph about people being ashamed about their opulent and luxurious lifestyle, I was trying to exemplify the moral degradation in our present society. It was an ineffectual and misleading example, and I might even go so far as to retract it. Perhaps, in this oligarchy, the leaders could be honestly afforded luxuries unavailable to the rest of the population. Squealer argued that pigs need apples and houses in order to function--if the oligarchs could properly justify that a luxury enhanced their ability to lead, then it should be permissible.
You raise several questions about corruption and infighting among the oligarchs, valid points that I may have appeared incognizant of by my hastily chosen words (“virtuousness”). But I did foresee them; that is why I chose the oligarchy. It seems likely that corruption and immorality should grip a carefully chosen group of leaders than a carefully chosen monarch or a massive rabble assembly. I also believe that a radically wrong course of action is less likely to result from a body, which may be divided, than from a sole individual. The oligarchs’ squabbles may slow their progress, but it will similarly moderate their failures.
Anonymous, you did a really good job on critiquing this argument. I will actually confide in you that I don’t believe in the oligarchy or a “swinish” multitude, but I have argued it here for the sake of understanding my opponents’ side better. Nonetheless, I find this conversation stimulating and intriguing. Thanks for writing!
Post a Comment