Aristocracy is an efficient way to transfer knowledge and skill of leadership from one generation to the next. I like it.
The main problem I see with it is that being born into a leadership position or role doesn't automatically mean the firstborn will want to do it or even be effective. Another issue of power no matter how that power is gained is that if you abuse people in your care long enough and severely enough, you will inevitably have a rebellion to deal with. Even if you slaughter your enemies by the millions, you still fail to win their hearts and minds. These are people who can only wield power because they have earned the respect and consent of those who are "beneath" them. While they undoubtedly enjoy a certain status, they can't enjoy that status forever if they don't keep the favor of the lower classes. England quickly grew hip to what was happening in France and Russia and steered far clear of allowing those kinds of destructive ideas take hold there. Getting spanked hard by America was the first sign that they'd messed up. And later on when Gandhi brought the ENTIRE EMPIRE to its knees, they figured they best be careful.
One key difference between England and others who have epically failed is that England fails early, learns, and adapts. France had a tiny spot of melanoma with Louis XIV that could have been easily corrected. It was a cancer that spread rapidly through the aristocracy after his death. Once France revolted, it took them entirely too long to stabilize.
America HAD an aristocracy in the South that learned absolutely nothing from the mistakes of England. But America as a whole followed in a similar pattern as the British--fail early, fail fast, learn, correct, adapt. I think where we continue to fail is in dealing with victim classes, which is something I think probably most countries globally struggle with. The British aristocracy is locked in servitude to its subjects and cannot be anything else other than what it is. Commoners have a greater degree of actual freedom and, thus, power since they aren't born into any specific obligation to anyone else. Aristocrats have to abandon positions of power and privilege to do the same thing and endure a life that's actually more difficult than what they're born into. An aristocrat can leverage power and privilege to do a wide range of things, but it comes at the cost of obligation to people (Commoners) that they don't necessarily like or who really don't like them. It's much easier to hide behind palace walls and run charities than it is to actively develop a skill, start a business, or find employment. Power and privilege mean little without freedom to go along with it.
15 Oct 2020, 6:18 am
