terça-feira, 15 de fevereiro de 2011
TEc debate motion "This house believes that the global elite serve the masses" - A few thoughts.
Yet again a motion statement too rigid that I cannot vote for.
To begin with what comes under elite?
Is it about a small share of the population in a given society holding the most money?
Or is it a broader concept that covers the rich as well as many influential groups who by dint of their profession/social position are critical making society they're a part of work better or worse? These people while being well-to-do are not necessarily rich.
Or do both go hand in hand?
Whatever definition is picked fact remains every society has had its elites and will continue to have them. Just as well.
It is a natural consequence of the pyramidal shape of any human grouping since long.
To decidedly write-off elites blaming them for the woes of the world is as factual as it is grossly innacurate.
There are many successful countries where a fair level of social balance has been achieved. It makes a favourable case for the elites of those countries.
The reverse is also overwhelmingly true.
That said, my point is that working elites are required and are generated naturally in every society. From the US to Scandinavia to the poorest African or Asian country.
They are present in all areas of human activity too, from politics to football.
They can, should and in many cases do make a positive contribution to the advancement of the masses.
The problem in many countries/societies is that no-one quite knows who the elite are.
Whoever they are would not like to be closely associated with the small privileged group concept. Yet many would like to be seen to be a part of it by flashing and flaunting their wealth around.
Indeed they are the local elite but certainly not the type who will make any effort to serve the masses.
If asked most wouldn't even know the correct meaning of 'to serve'. To serve?
In other societies a stigma is attached to the elite that has set them back on the defensive. Causing them to recoil to a shut-in position within their own world.
Others still have seen elites generally do the right thing over many decades. To their own gain first - as is inherent of the human condition - but doubtless bringing in a net gain to society as well.
It is therefore a multilayered strata reality.
On balance I believe it cannot be said that global elites serve the masses. But such a view is unfair on those from the elite who really do make a powerful difference.
Generally speaking they (global elite) - if 'they' should all be classed as one - pursue self-interest first and foremost.
Many definitely impact larger society positively as a result of their competence and values.
To wind up it may now be said matter-of-factly that the world's top financial elite failed the 'masses' miserably.
In many societies but not all.
For them the masses were never there nor would they ever care to spare a fleeting thought. Their actions became a feature ingrained in the system.
But who on earth re-designed the financial system and pocketed politicians?
To begin with what comes under elite?
Is it about a small share of the population in a given society holding the most money?
Or is it a broader concept that covers the rich as well as many influential groups who by dint of their profession/social position are critical making society they're a part of work better or worse? These people while being well-to-do are not necessarily rich.
Or do both go hand in hand?
Whatever definition is picked fact remains every society has had its elites and will continue to have them. Just as well.
It is a natural consequence of the pyramidal shape of any human grouping since long.
To decidedly write-off elites blaming them for the woes of the world is as factual as it is grossly innacurate.
There are many successful countries where a fair level of social balance has been achieved. It makes a favourable case for the elites of those countries.
The reverse is also overwhelmingly true.
That said, my point is that working elites are required and are generated naturally in every society. From the US to Scandinavia to the poorest African or Asian country.
They are present in all areas of human activity too, from politics to football.
They can, should and in many cases do make a positive contribution to the advancement of the masses.
The problem in many countries/societies is that no-one quite knows who the elite are.
Whoever they are would not like to be closely associated with the small privileged group concept. Yet many would like to be seen to be a part of it by flashing and flaunting their wealth around.
Indeed they are the local elite but certainly not the type who will make any effort to serve the masses.
If asked most wouldn't even know the correct meaning of 'to serve'. To serve?
In other societies a stigma is attached to the elite that has set them back on the defensive. Causing them to recoil to a shut-in position within their own world.
Others still have seen elites generally do the right thing over many decades. To their own gain first - as is inherent of the human condition - but doubtless bringing in a net gain to society as well.
It is therefore a multilayered strata reality.
On balance I believe it cannot be said that global elites serve the masses. But such a view is unfair on those from the elite who really do make a powerful difference.
Generally speaking they (global elite) - if 'they' should all be classed as one - pursue self-interest first and foremost.
Many definitely impact larger society positively as a result of their competence and values.
To wind up it may now be said matter-of-factly that the world's top financial elite failed the 'masses' miserably.
In many societies but not all.
For them the masses were never there nor would they ever care to spare a fleeting thought. Their actions became a feature ingrained in the system.
But who on earth re-designed the financial system and pocketed politicians?
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário