Brahmins vs merchants - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Which elite do you think has most chances of winning?

The Brahmins
No votes
0%
The merchants
3
38%
Deadlock
3
38%
Other
2
25%
By Reichstraten
#14943588
I came across this interesting article. Please read it first before voting.
Roughly there are two different elites battling for power: the "Brahmins" and the "merchants".

The battle between two elites: the haves and have-yachts

Today’s politics is dominated by leftwing intellectuals and a wealthy rightwing merchant class

Simon Kuper


“Elite” is the political hate-word of our time but, during a rant in Fargo, North Dakota, this summer, Donald Trump said something interesting. “They call it the elite,” he complained. “We got more money, we got more brains, we got better houses and apartments, we got nicer boats, we’re smarter than they are and they say they’re the elite.”

Trump was on to something: in western politics, there isn’t one elite, but two. There’s the liberal “cultural elite” that he despises, and his own big-boated, rightwing moneyed elite.

In a strangely overlooked recent paper, French economist Thomas Piketty — famous for his 2013 tome Capital in the Twenty-First Century — anatomises the rival elites in the US, UK and France. Piketty has merged post-electoral surveys from 1948 to 2017 with data on voters’ wealth, education, income and so on. The story for each country is similar. The cultural elite and the moneyed elite (“Brahmins” and “merchants”, as Piketty calls them) are both growing. Both have captured their chosen political parties. On left and right, politics is now an elite sport.

The big change since 1948 is the educated elite’s shift left. “The trend is virtually identical in the three countries,” notes Piketty. In the US, for instance, from the 1940s to the 1960s the more educated people were, the more they voted Republican. By 2016, the situation had reversed: 70 per cent of voters with masters degrees backed Hillary Clinton. British graduates moved left more slowly, but now mostly vote Labour.

The educated elite is relatively young, urban, increasingly female — and growing. Marx would call it a “rising class”. Take the US: in 1948, only 6 per cent of voters had any university degree. By 2016, 13 per cent had a masters degree or PhD. In France in 1956, 5 per cent of voters had tertiary degrees; by 2012, 16 per cent had advanced degrees. In short, this isn’t some tiny elite concentrated in Brooklyn’s Park Slope or Paris’s Left Bank. Brahmins are everywhere now. Many of them are well-off professionals, but others are librarians and lumpen-intellectuals with terrible boats.

While Brahmins moved left, the wealthy stayed exactly where they were: on the right. “Wealth” is the operative word here. Piketty shows that high-income earners are split between right and left. But people with wealth (some of whom simply own their own homes outright) are much more predictably rightwing. “Wealth is a stronger determinant of voting attitude than income,” writes Piketty. “To my knowledge this simple fact has not been established in previous research.” Like the educated elite, the wealthy elite has kept growing. Incomes may have stagnated, but heirs abound like never before. Families have amassed nest eggs over 73 years of peace. Ever more people inherit homes. British and US stock markets have all both record highs since May.

Piketty’s “merchant” class (which includes many business owners) probably skews relatively male and suburban. Its members are regularly snubbed by Brahmins because they are generally less educated, older, and out of touch with today’s fashionable restaurants, clothes and language. Merchants typically regard their wealth as their own achievement (or at least that of their families), whereas Brahmins tend to attribute it to impersonal economic forces.

In short, Brahmins and merchants have a natural enmity. True, many people have a foot in both elites: picture the feminist who majored in philosophy at Princeton but is now an heir working in finance. Some feel torn. In Uneasy Street, sociologist Rachel Sherman describes liberal Brooklynites mortified by their own wealth: one rich interviewee believes that many rich people are “total assholes”. But most elite members eventually choose one camp over another.

The elite battle plays out differently in each country. In France, Emmanuel Macron was elected by Brahmins, but has increasingly won over merchants, partly by scrapping the wealth tax. If he can combine both elites, that would probably be enough to win a quarter of all first-round votes and be re-elected president.

But British and US parties need nearly half the electorate, so they woo underprivileged people as voting fodder. Both right and left parties have to do this without giving most underprivileged voters what they want. Leftwing parties won’t bash immigrants, while rightwing parties refuse to redistribute money.

The underprivileged watch helplessly, sidelined in politics as in most professions. No longer do non-graduates like Harry Truman or John Major lead governments. Even Italy’s populist prime minister is a law professor, who faced allegations that he embellished his educational CV. Today’s politicians are elitists educated by Brahmins, chastised by Brahmin commentators, and funded by merchants. Piketty remarks: “Maybe unsurprisingly, the massive increase in abstention… in all three countries between the 1950s-1960s and the 2000s-2010s arose for the most part within lower education and lower income groups.”

Rightwing parties have won recent elections, partly by savaging the Brahmin “elite”. But two can play this game. The left needs to own the word “elite”, but turn it against the merchants. The big question in today’s politics is which elite wins.
#14943591
Deadlock: the two elites need each other. Trump embodies the merchant elite - brash, vulgar, arrogant and stupid. Without the Brahmin elite to do their thinking for them, the merchant elite would have crashed and burned long ago - the working class they exploit would have overthrown them. And by the same token, the Brahmin elite need the merchant elite - after all, who else is going to bankroll all those 'think tanks', or pay for them to do those college courses in gender studies? Lol.
#14943595
Neither because the Kshatriya (warriors) are going to win because the Kshatriya have cruise missiles and AI guided beweaponed stealth drones. Vaishyas (merchants) like Trump will enjoy a subordinate position due to their usefulness to the over all civilian economy which ultimately supports cruise missile production for the Kshatriya. The Brahmins will lose to the third place at best because in the supermarket of ideas they are all far too divided amongst a million different cults to successfully hijack the minds of the Kshatriya and the Vaishyas in a coordinated way. Having a monopoly on ideas is the only way a Brahmin class can take first place.

Image
#14943660
SolarCross wrote:Neither because the Kshatriya (warriors) are going to win because the Kshatriya have cruise missiles and AI guided beweaponed stealth drones. Vaishyas (merchants) like Trump will enjoy a subordinate position due to their usefulness to the over all civilian economy which ultimately supports cruise missile production for the Kshatriya. The Brahmins will lose to the third place at best because in the supermarket of ideas they are all far too divided amongst a million different cults to successfully hijack the minds of the Kshatriya and the Vaishyas in a coordinated way. Having a monopoly on ideas is the only way a Brahmin class can take first place.

Image

The Soviet elite owned similar toys, but it didn't do them much good in 1991, did it? The power of ideas matters. Without faith in their own ideology, any ruling elite is doomed, and not all the fancy whizz-bang toys in the world are going to save them.
#14943667
Potemkin wrote:The Soviet elite owned similar toys, but it didn't do them much good in 1991, did it? The power of ideas matters. Without faith in their own ideology, any ruling elite is doomed, and not all the fancy whizz-bang toys in the world are going to save them.


Indeed. Stalin called the Soviet Elite below him in position within the Party as ''Blind Kittens'', who would ruin everything after he was gone.

One difference being with the Soviets I think, is that the Anglo-American Elites, ''Brahmin'' and ''Vaishya'' or ''Kshatriya'', are absolutely and stupidly besotted by the Idol of modern technology and it's surveillance and military applications.
#14943734
Potemkin wrote:The Soviet elite owned similar toys, but it didn't do them much good in 1991, did it? The power of ideas matters. Without faith in their own ideology, any ruling elite is doomed, and not all the fancy whizz-bang toys in the world are going to save them.

Ideas matter but bullshit wears thin after awhile especially the bullshit which causes nothing but misery, bullshit is all the Brahmin have, it's their one special power. I would argue the pivot around 1991 for the USSR only proves my point. The USSR was ruled not by Vaishyas nor by Kshatriyas but by commie Brahmins and it went to shit because of that. Then out of the ashes Russia rises again lead by... a KGB officer, who plays chess, practices judo and if legend has it true wrestles bears with his bare hands, so a Kshatriya down to the marrow. What is Putin's ideology? I say his ideology is just "fight and win", a kshatriya ideology if ever there was one.

In 1999, Putin described communism as "a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization".
Last edited by SolarCross on 01 Sep 2018 12:48, edited 1 time in total.
#14943761
Reichstraten wrote:A distinct feature of the Brahmins is their interest in culture. Do you think culture is bullshit?

Everybody likes culture and every caste produces it of one sort or another, the Vaishyas are particularly prolific culture creators. For Brahmins culture is not something merely enriching or informative or entertaining it is a means of attaining power and privilege through culture control. Brahmins then are uniquely hostile to the culture of other castes and also other Brahmins of a different narrative. Brahmins edit and censor at least as much as they actually create and what they create is ultimately produced to hack the minds of others, to bend them to their will.

Freedom of speech is not an adaptive value for Brahmins though it is for Vaishyas. Kshatriyas can go either way on freedom of speech, for Kshatriya security always comes first so that can easily trump a general preference for free speaking where the speech may compromise security.
#14943826
I voted ''Other'', because these sort of analogical terms are limited in their utility in the real world.

However...

I believe that our ''Merchants'' or ''Vaishya'' will win out as an Elite, but themselves tending towards the Libertarian/Objectivist/ Anarcho-Capitalistic end of the political spectrum, will eliminate their own ruling position in society as they dismantle and privatize the State.
#14944273
SolarCross wrote:Everybody likes culture and every caste produces it of one sort or another, the Vaishyas are particularly prolific culture creators. For Brahmins culture is not something merely enriching or informative or entertaining it is a means of attaining power and privilege through culture control. Brahmins then are uniquely hostile to the culture of other castes and also other Brahmins of a different narrative. Brahmins edit and censor at least as much as they actually create and what they create is ultimately produced to hack the minds of others, to bend them to their will.

Freedom of speech is not an adaptive value for Brahmins though it is for Vaishyas. Kshatriyas can go either way on freedom of speech, for Kshatriya security always comes first so that can easily trump a general preference for free speaking where the speech may compromise security.


You have a vast imagination. :lol:
#14944311
Reichstraten wrote:You have a vast imagination. :lol:

Thank you, you are very kind to say so. :lol:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

- Albert Einstein

It's interesting how full of shit you are, @skins[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]

Again with the blatant lies. :lol: I asked you t[…]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]