Rapacious but effete

“The Rise and Fall of Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology” is a text by Vilfredo Pareto, originally published in 1901. Pareto was an Italian sociologist of a somewhat cynical or ironic bent, and his text isn´t “scientific” in the strict sense of the term, despite protestations to the contrary, but rather a spirited piece of political polemic. Many of Pareto´s observations are even more true today than they were in 1901, but there are also some differences (although not necessarily for the better).

Pareto believes that all societies are ruled by an elite group. All rhetoric about “humanitarianism” or “equal rights” is just hot air. To overthrow the old elite, the new elite naturally claims to speak in the name of the whole people, and even mobilize it to attack the old guard, but once in power, the new elite turns on its popular allies. This sounds like the Marxist critique of the bourgeoisie and the limitations of the bourgeois revolution, but Pareto extends it to cover socialism as well (his thesis would be amply proven by the October revolution in Russia 16 years later).

There are three main types of elites: rapacious and strong, rapacious but weak (Pareto uses the unabashedly sexist and heterosexist term “effete”), and non-rapacious but strong. The latter form is the best one, but also the least common one. Over time, the rapacious elite tend to transition from strong to weak, but without losing its rapaciousness. This situation is what Pareto sees all around him in 1901. The bourgeoisie and the middle class have become humanitarian, caring and ascetic. Law and order isn´t upheld anymore, workers can strike without impunity, and culture becomes more and more confused and decadent. Ultimately, Pareto believes that the humanitarianism and asceticism is just a pose, since the elite is just as acquisitive and exploitative as before. However, its weakness is real and hence its rapaciousness simply fans the flames of resistance, a resistance that will eventually topple the elite stratum.

Who will replace the effete bourgeoisie? Pareto´s answer is the socialists. Not the working class as a whole, which will remain at the bottom as usual, but rather the labor aristocracy and labor bureaucracy (although Pareto doesn´t use these very terms). The workers who join unions and learn to live a life of dedication, discipline and struggle (and even abstain from hard liquor) are the nucleus of the new elite. This was presumably written when unions only organized a minority of the class, and often its more skilled layers. It´s intriguing that Pareto almost treats the unions as a kind of “vanguard” – Lenin would have been impressed. Of course, Lenin rejected the labor aristocracy in favor of mobilizing “the dark masses” (the unskilled workers), but his own political faction consisted of professional revolutionaries. Pareto´s ideas may owe something to observing French revolutionary syndicalism. Pareto never explicitly says that the new socialist elite will take power through a revolution, however. 

At one point, the spirited sociologist writes that a military dictatorship might come to power in some European nation, perhaps due to war, but it´s doubtful whether this regime will benefit the old elite. Perhaps it will benefit the new? Here, Pareto is almost divining the future phenomenon of fascism. Although fascism ultimately benefited the bourgeoisie or even the old aristocracy, it did have a pseudo-socialist side, and could perhaps have become a “third force” if the world situation had been somewhat different – in other words, an excellent neo-elite in Pareto´s sense. Pareto was right that capitalism was on the verge of a transformation. During the 20^th century, many nations were governed by Social Democratic, Communist or fascist governments, all of which to some extent resembled the new elite Pareto was trying to describe. Ultimately, however, Social Democracy fused with the rapacious but effete bourgeoisie it had previously combated, while Communism and fascism collapsed (more or less). 

A more peculiar trait of Pareto´s analysis is the claim that the crisis of the old elite goes hand in hand with an upsurge in religious sentiment. Here, it´s obvious that the author is using “religion” in a somewhat broad sense. He seems to have in mind a kind of irrational sentimentalism and emotionalism. A large portion of “The Rise and Fall” is devoted to attack the temperance movement, vegetarianism, religious sects and cults, a permissive attitude towards criminals, moral panics around sex, and so on. It´s obvious that Pareto was a sexist, since women bear the brunt of the attack. And yes, the old hypocrite believed that prostitutes freely chose their trade because of immorality! Socialism is also said to be a “religion”, and to become more and more “religious” every day. In other words, both the old elite and the new elite are “religious”, or rather driven by subjective sentiment and feeling rather than by reason or science. The broad masses are just as subjective. It´s easy to make a tie-in to George Sorel here (who believed in the power of irrational “myths”) and Henri Bergson (who was often interpreted to mean pretty much the same thing). Note also the similarity to Nietzsche´s completely amoral “will to power”. Fascism tried to turn these things into a positive!

I frequently gasped how correctly Pareto, writing in 1901, has diagnosed our own time. The combination of phony humanitarianism (“Refugees Welcome”) and rapaciousness (they are “welcome” as cheap labor while we turn their countries into rubble) is pretty obvious. The hypocritical asceticism of the bourgeoisie mentioned by the Italian cynic walks again in the form of “the fight against climate change”, Greta Thunberg´s veganism and refusal to fly (but she has no problem traveling first class on a train), etc. Even some of the concrete arguments are identical. Already in 1901, vegetarians argued that their diet could save the world from environmental destruction! At the same time, the elite is becoming more and more weak and frankly bizarre. The reader will have to furnish his or her (or hir) own examples here. 

“The religious sentiment” is perhaps exemplified by the SJWs, including their demonological hysteria directed at Donald Trump, Brexit and Muh Russians. However, there also seem to be differences. For instance, the naïve liberalism and decadence in 2020 seem to be much worse than in 1901. Note also the falling birthrates in the Western nations, and the widespread pacifism in all layers of the population. More ominously, there doesn´t seem to be any new elite waiting in the wings. The opposition “from the left” simply wants more of the same, while the opposition “from the right” (with some exceptions) wants even more neo-liberalism, making it unclear how they are supposed to “control the borders”, "save the nation", etc. All of society is becoming more and more rotten, with no social force capable of solving the crisis.

But perhaps there is a new elite…internationally. Yes, that would be Russia and China, rather than the Islamists (who are rather the new warlords or lumpen street gangs). If China really is as dependent on US dollars and technology transfers as some claim, Russia (with its enormous reserves of oil, gas and uranium) look like a more likely hegemon if the US declines even more, especially since their territory spans Europe, Asia and the Arctic. If Pareto is right, though, Russia (or China) must develop their own “religion” before they can engage in the final battle. China´s weird cult of productivity and middle class living standards probably won´t cut the chase, and as for Russia, Putinism is a far cry from Pan-Slavism or Communism. Here, the Islamists seem to have a stronger alternative! Of course, there is also a wildcard which could upset everyone´s apple carts considerably: climate change and the ecological crisis in general.

With that, I leave “The Rise and Fall of Elites” for now.