A healthy state of inter-class relations is a necessity for societal prosperity. Case in point, the 20th century is littered with examples of the consequences of class resentment – ones which are of an existential significance to the lower and middle classes. The elimination of class-based bigotry and hate is a matter of fairness to the elites and of harm avoidance to the popular masses.
The Structure of Society
Ultimately, a society is held together by a combination of cultural unity and the threat of force. In practice, this culminates in statehood and government. What many fail to understand is that culture is what gives legitimacy to the state. Without legitimacy, the state is nothing more than a collective of armed men who steal, kidnap, imprison, and murder. As such, the state inherently depends on its culture creators just as much as its institution developers and industrialists. Together, they comprise the state-bearing members of society – what is referred to as the elites. As per the theory of dialectical geneticism (which treats culture synonymously with religion), “Since religions tend to favor the genetic interests of its architects, it only makes sense that the more genetically distant a person is from the architects of his religion, that the lower their social status will be in that religious community. As such, social class is as genetic of a construct as it is a social construct.” The archetype that best fits this class of people is Apollo – the founder of civilizations.
The professional middle class – what is often referred to as the bourgeoisie – comprises a collective of people who are intelligent enough to learn and apply elite concepts and manage elite institutions but are not intelligent enough to develop or maintain these themselves. Collectively, the professional middle class represents a class of (skilled) laborers, much to its chagrin. Historically, a disequilibrium of a finite number of high professional positions and a higher number of qualified applicants meant that candidates were not selected merely based on competence, but also based on their allegiance to the dominant culture. This meant that those male candidates who had a higher propensity to signal virtue, such as fake altruism, would have been selected for these positions, and in turn, would have been better able to attract females and financially support larger families. The traits that the bourgeoisie has been selected for render its constituents nicely into a societal role as cultural enforcers. The archetype that best fits this class of people is the “Goody Two-Shoes”.
The working class – what is sometimes referred to as the proletariat – comprises a collective of people who are either unskilled laborers or skilled manual laborers. While the elites have a willingness and respect for manual labor, to do so would mean that they would have to allocate time away from statecraft and development. Given that the latter 2 are of greater value to the lower classes, it would be a disadvantage for the entirety of society if the elites spent their time engaging in manual labor. To contrast, the bourgeoisie is unwilling to do any manual labor, as it would offend its false but deeply desired identity as a non-laboring class – a cognitive dissonance that is characteristic of the professional middle class and which manifests itself as a disgust for manual labor and laborers. As such, the working class is left to do the “dirty work” that neither class will do.
Each class has a valuable and necessary role to play, in society. Since every class enjoys the benefits of society, it stands to reason that the contribution of each class ought to be acknowledged and respected. However, this is not what happens, in practice. Instead, we see that working class directs its hatred towards the elites – those who make life comfortable for the workers – when it is the bourgeoisie who looks down upon them. This speaks to how nonsensical populism is but that remains beyond the scope of this article.
To make matters even more bizarre, the professional middle class is a hotbed of hate. Members of the bourgeoisie look down and talk down to working class individuals to such a degree, that the threat of becoming a manual laborer is used as an implicit threat to bourgeois children with the aim of motivating educational achievement; “you don’t want to end up like them, do you?” Worse still, they have a fundamental jealousy and resentment of elites, purely on the basis of them being more important, intelligent, accomplished, desirable, wealthy, healthy, and good-looking. In other words, the bourgeoisie hates the elites and the workers for how they were born. Yet, the professional middle class has the audacity to behave as anti-hate cultural enforcers.
As exemplified by the Soviet revolution, the elites are what prevent the bourgeoisie from starving the proletariat. The moment that the Romanovs were overthrown by bourgeois Bolshevik intellectuals, the proletariat was instantly hurled towards the path of famine and misery. On a similar note, science, math, technology, engineering, and philosophy is a product of geniuses. What would the bourgeoisie even have to teach if not for that which was invented by the elites?
The elite can by definition only be the few, and their power, or rather their authority, deriving as it does from their intellectual superiority, has nothing in common with the numerical strength on which democracy is based, a strength whose inherent tendency is to sacrifice the minority to the majority, and therefore quality to quantity, and the elite to the masses.Crisis of the Modern World (1927), p. 78, René Guénon
Each class must accept the other as being part of a group-level symbiotic relationship, in society. Otherwise, it is the lower classes who suffer gravely. For this reason, aristophobia is just as hateful for the lower classes as it is for the excellent.