# Does a socioeconomic elite class have value to people who aren't in it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-socioeconomic-elite-class-have-value-to-people-who-arent-in-it/341434 "2006-01-24T20:11:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-socioeconomic-elite-class-have-value-to-people-who-arent-in-it/341434/1 "2006-01-24T20:11:48Z")
Bertrand Russell, in _Power,_ wrote something to the effect (can’t recall the quote verbatim or put my hands on the book) that, whatever one’s **politics** might be, there can be no defense for an aristocratic **ethic** – these few are to enjoy the good things and the others merely to minister to them. He added that aristocrats have always behaved in a way no other ethic could justify; and, as an English earl, Russell ought to know something about aristocrats. Taking that ethical position as a starting point – is it arguable that the existence of an elite class in society (whether hereditary or meritocratic or, as in the contemporary U.S., a mixture\*) is of some benefit to the other classes, or to society as a whole? Does it have a value that would be lost in a classless society (assuming _arguendo_ that such a thing were possible)? A conservative friend of mine sometimes talks of all the good things wealthy philanthropists give the world, in work for charity and patronage of the arts and education. This is undoubtedly true. (As a librarian, I am very sensible of the things Andrew Carnegie did to establish public libraries in the U.S.) But do they give more, or more efficiently, than government could? There is also the value of an elite class as a training-ground for public service. In Britain, the gentry have historically provided society with its top civil servants, military officers, clergy, local justices of the peace – in general, leaders. Now, any society, however egalitarian, will have some kind of “institutional elite.” That does not logically require said elite be drawn mainly from a social elite class. But, is it perhaps better if it is? Do people raised in wealth and privilege make more effective leaders? Many people ascribe an elite class a kind of esthetic value, which makes it a kind of end-in-itself. Certainly most things we remember about past ages were either done by elites or made possible by their patronage. Who would want to study the history of the Baroque Period if it were all about the peasants and artisans? We want to read about the refined aristocracy and the magnificent art and architecture they paid for! John Maynard Keynes, writing on the Soviet Union, once said, “How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia who, with whatever faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of human advancement?” I’m playing Devil’s advocate in terms of my own mostly left-wing views here, but this is a topic I think merits discussion. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-a-socioeconomic-elite-class-have-value-to-people-who-arent-in-it/341434)._