TThe concept of “elite overproduction” was developed by social scientist Peter Turchin around the beginning of this century to explain the specific phenomenon of there being too many rich people and not enough jobs for the rich. It’s a byproduct of inequality. Of course, there are not only large numbers of poor people, but also a plethora of wealthy people who do not have enough status to hold the influence or status they think they are entitled to. In the modern context, it means the upper echelons of government and the civil service, the top echelons of finance and law, but Turchin tested the hypothesis from ancient Rome to 19th century England. The names and nature of the contested jobs and titles have changed. The pattern remained. In 2010, Turchin predicted that U.S. politics would become unstable by the 2020s.
In recent years, the phrase has been recycled in Britain in the wildest of ways. In other words, this means that an excess of human resources at universities will lead to undesirable activities (my theory). Or, as the Economist newspaper (again, paraphrasing) says, there are too many mediocre members of parliament who cannot hope for preferential treatment due to a landslide, and will instead cause problems. The second proposition may be true, but the first is basic anti-intellectualism. Mr. Turchin did not specify exactly how much wealth it takes to fall into the category of an over-produced elite, but he was not referring to debt-laden students. He’s not talking about members of Congress. Simply put, he meant billionaires or the top 1%. When much of the media is owned by billionaires, those media sources are endlessly inventive in stealing heat from billionaires, stealing vocabulary to nip criticism in the bud and throwing it back at everyone. It will be.
But think about it for a moment. Because elite overproduction in the truest sense of the word is hurting world politics. Elon Musk participated in the US elections by means of long-term and short-term, upper and lower levels of committees. Since purchasing X (formerly known as Twitter), his influence has been mired in humorous epithets for a while, but in recent months his true purpose has become clearer. Paid verification has removed trust in reliable sources that cannot be purchased. Republican accounts thrive while Democratic accounts languish. Mr. Musk himself has amplified lies and conspiracy theories. He has donated $75 million directly to his American PAC (Political Action Committee), which has an X account and a yellow checkmark (whatever that means). Selling the xenophobic bilge. Earlier this month, Musk launched a campaign to give away $1 million to voters in Philadelphia, potentially illegally.
Musk also spoke at a rally at Madison Square Garden, but left the “sarcastic” fashionable posts (derogatory terms about places or races) to others. He promised one thing. “We’re going to get the government out of you,” he said over the weekend at a telephone town hall (which is like a radio phone, but with the exception of calling voters on a radio phone) to flesh out the meaning of small government. has become a reality: Ordinary Americans will face “temporary hardship” as welfare programs are cut to rebuild, but they will endure the pain because “it guarantees long-term prosperity.” You need to accept it.
It’s not the worst thing to come out of the Trump campaign in these tough few days, and certainly not the worst thing Musk has said, but this is the cleanest yet about what elite overproduction looks like. That’s an image. Elon Musk may be, but he himself has never been elected in the United States. But as cost-cutting czar, the made-up role President Trump has promised, he will wield extraordinary power to cause pain, and the only choice left for the public is whether to embrace it or not. . Another billionaire donor, John Paulson, has been floated as a possible Treasury secretary candidate, and President Trump has a track record of rewarding big donors with seats at the table — Billionaire Stephen Schwartzman boasted in print about his role in the new North America during free trade agreement negotiations in 2018, and as part of President Trump’s “Strategy and Policy Forum” during the administration in 2017.
Unfortunately, more billionaires donated to Kamala Harris’ campaign (21) than to Trump’s campaign (14). This is a problem for mature democracies everywhere. All political parties favor the wealthy. It creates an equal atmosphere. If a rich man buys you clothes, how is that different from him buying you a social media platform? If a rich person cancels support for a rival but doesn’t support you, does that pass the sniff test? If you devise an ideological plan that people are moderately convinced of, and that proposal involves hiring ideologically loyal public servants, collecting data on abortion, and restricting the use of abortion drugs, you are trying to politicize it at a charity auction. Is it any different from a harassing moneybag buying a tennis match with a coach?
And what about billionaires who put their fingers on both scales and donate to both candidates? Is this all the same game?
Qualitatively yes. All billionaires are bad news in politics. All purchased influence is undemocratic. But the billionaires lining up behind the neo-fascists shows that this is a new phase in which they are demanding even more in return. They are not trying to protect commercial interests. They don’t need any more money. They do not even try to strengthen their own political influence, but rather neutralize any influence that might oppose it. Delinquent elites are openly campaigning against democracy, and it certainly appears to be significantly destabilizing.
