I took it to meant that since we don't have a Cecil family or something similar, conservatives who are always in charge and leading well, those at the top of society circulate in and out as leaders, politically and socially, when we're in virtuous eras.
Lol. American industrialism equals American aristocracy lol. Merchant boys can’t be aristocracy. Aristocracy is tied to the lands in the people. Merchant boys are always tied to profit. Any attempts they make to “save America “will always be put in the backseat to their profits. This was absurd. The real aristocracy of America was put to death during the Yankee invasion. All the industrial interest were just pretenders and could never be aristocracy.
This isn’t really true. For one, while I quite like the Southern cavaliers, nearly all were Democrats or Whigs - not High Tories, and it’s near-impossible to have a functional aristocracy without that mindset.
Further, even the British aristocracy saw men of industry/commerce could become aristocratic in mindset after three or so generations of hereditary wealth, and transfered a good portion of its assets into equities as the century ground on
So yes, I don’t think Rockefeller was an aristocrat. However, Henry Ford acted like one - in many ways being an American version of the Earls Fitzwilliam in how he treated workers, though then his kids destroyed that - and JP Morgan, the Astors, and others of the New York elite, which was indeed aristocratic because of long-lasting Anglo-Dutch manorial estates and the mindset their owners inculcated, were relatively aristocratic. Carnegie was a more mixed case. But the American gentry generally, which was wealthy enough to not have to work much and quickly volunteered to fight when wars came up, were an untiled aristocracy and our industrial wealth helped keep that system alive here as it started to shrivel on the vine in Europe
This is an absurd claim and it’s a bogus criteria. From the first families of Virginia to John Taylor of Caroline and John Randolph, all the way through the Lees, Carters, Drayton’s and a whole host of other families to numerous to list, not to mention the growing Legion of gentility made up of planters and the cream of the backwoodsman, the South was the only place that had an aristocracy. That’s because the south knew how to lead men through command presence love of people and love a place. Merchant boys only know the love of profit and how to buy men. But buying men doesn’t give you the record that forest had in the Yankee invasion and leading the Klan to end reconstruction.
There was never a monolith of British that accepted merchant boys as aristocracy, in fact, the accepters were the minority. Allowing merchant boys into the upper class of Britain was always resisted by the actual aristocracy and only accepted by the weak and indebted among them. Which is how the Jews bought them up a generation before Cromwell and spent the next 250 years or so destroying them. The last dying in the great war.
The Dutch were worse than the English having been bought by Jews after they were forced out of Spain. Nothing from there after that migration is worth taking seriously.
Industrial wealth destroyed the aristocracy. You keep conflating being wealthy with being an aristocrat, which I explained is clearly not the case.
'Nouveau riche' is the definition of high bourgeoise as distinct from established landed aristocracy. It's purely semantic. Americans seem to conflate aristocracy with 'elite'. This leads to historical misunderstanding, because then you can't make sense of the transition from aristocratic culture to high bourgeois culture in post-French revolution Europe and US.
What you define as American aristocracy would be regarded in the context of European culture high bourgeoisie. European aristocracy were 'landed aristocracy' who had inherited privileges and were an established elite. What you're talking about is quintessential 'nouveau riche', which is the bourgeoisie as opposed to the established aristocracy. Being the established generational wealth, ie., aristocratic descent, is definitive of European aristocracy. A 'self-made aristocracy' seems to be an oxymoron.
By the 1870s the land was more an accessory than basis of wealth, largely because of free trade related to grain, and the basis of the great house’s wealth was urban real estate, financial instruments, and American heiresses. Not in every case, of course, but in many
JP Morgan, who had an English estate, wasn’t really “bourgeois” in the same way that a shopkeeper is, and by the early 20th century, America was onto the 2nd/3rd generation, which in England was generally about the amount of generations it took for a family to become established
I understand, but the issue concerns the culture. The established elite of the 19th century was not culturally European aristocratic but high bourgeois. The issue is sociology. Also, I'm not talking about petit bourgeoise. I'd say that sociologically they're distinct.
I think that the Academic Agent, for all his faults, is close to the heart of this in the distinction b/w 'warrior class' vs. the 'merchant class'.
The high bourgeoise in Europe and possibly in the US took over the aristocratic European culture and reshaped it. Eg., I'd say that romanticism in literature and music is high bourgeois culture.
The problem seems to be that Americans kind of look at European culture from an American point of view. I see this also in American catholics, who seem to have a very odd understanding of Catholicism, to me anyway.
The bourgeois middle class in Europe were people who were very rich, often richer than the aristocracy, but lacked political power due to this fact.
The French revolution was a bourgeois revolt against l'ancient regime of the aristocracy.
It has to do with social order or status based on inherited title rather than wealth, and the culture that's associated with this specific class that emerged in medieval Europe.
European aristocracy developed a unique 'high' culture that distinguished it from the other social classes.
When the high bourgeoise took over, they reshaped European culture in terms of their preferred enlightenment 'universal' values, made it more egalitarian and democratic.
The communists were not satisfied with bourgeois rule as the final expression of enlioghtenment values.
They challenged bourgeois rule as not democratic enough, because they insisted on private property and social hierarchy based on economic wealth (rather than inherited titular status).
This also explains how Europe was socially stagnant under aristocratic rule, whereas abolishing this system leads to American style economic competition, because you can raise your social status by getting rich.
It then explains the current cultural degradation, not as a product of leftism or wokeism, but actually as the result of capitalist enrichment of the proletarian classes.
My argument is that when a large number of people moved up economically around the 1950s in the US, in a short period of time, there was no time for assimilation into high bourgeois culture as in 19th century Europe.
These Americans, esp. Californians, brought their plebeian blue collar culture with them, assigning it the status of high culture.
They insisted that their bluegrass and blues be given high status, even without any of the sort of classical rendering that the romanticists gave European folk themes.
That process was in effect in early 20th century US, and continues in eg., South America, but it stalled in mid-20th century leading to the great leveling and de-culturation, that was noticed in academic philosophy.
In other words, attaching social status to economic status can explain the great leveling and de-culturation that is most pronounced in the economically wealthy Anglo-sphere (a sort of cultural Dutch syndrome).
You can't really understand any of this, I don't think, without the transition from aristocratic to high bourgeois culture.
I agree with much of this, but I do think the pre-FDR(ish) New York set, and before the War Between the States the southern gentry, were essentially aristocratic in lifestyle and outlook. Most were old families who had controlled their wealth for a long while, generally back to the colonial wars period, and were similar in taste to English upper gentry they did their best to imitate. Some of the new money assimilated into that; the branch of the Vanderbilts that married into the Cecil family (and is still around, owning the Biltmore as a result) is an example of success in that regard. Not all did, and it was gentility with American characteristics, but it wasn't essentially bourgeois in outlook or culture
With FDR and his taxes, along with the other social changes of that period, all that died, and you're certainly right about the culture that followed
Yes, I guess in a derivative sense they acquire aristocratic traits, but its questionable whether this is necessarily desirable.
There are two aspects of aristocracy that I would distinguish, potentially positive and negative.
The European aristocracy held their status by inherited title. Even if they lost of their money, they'd still have their title, and so rich bourgeoisie had to marry into aristocracy, eg., by marrying a broke aristocrat. I don't quite see how that would work in the case of the US elites who were rich rather than titled, so that if they went broke that'd presumably be the end of their social status and political power.
However, this to a certain extent meant that the European aristocracy were not as economically competitive (so regularly went broke), were interested in the arts, and had a paternalistic relation to the lower classes, hence perhaps less predatory and exploitative. If your status depends on your assets, that might incentivize vulture capitalism and conspicuous consumption.
As a Hans Hermann Hoppe ancap libertarian, I believe that elites are necessary but I don't believe in inherited titles. However, the problem is that the wealthy bourgeois elites often seek to consolidate their privileges by engaging in rent seeking, so that they become just as entrenched and corrupt as the European aristocracy, not by way of either merit or title, but by way of state largesse.
So I'm for 'natural' elites, but I'm against inherited titles on the one hand, or rent-seeking bourgeoisie on the other. Both, inherited titles and rent-seeking are only really possible in the context of a highly centralised state.
Lol, “aristocracy of American own choosing”, isn’t that just Napoleon?
I took it to meant that since we don't have a Cecil family or something similar, conservatives who are always in charge and leading well, those at the top of society circulate in and out as leaders, politically and socially, when we're in virtuous eras.
American aristocracy is formed and maintained by faith. Hence the mobility within it
Lol. American industrialism equals American aristocracy lol. Merchant boys can’t be aristocracy. Aristocracy is tied to the lands in the people. Merchant boys are always tied to profit. Any attempts they make to “save America “will always be put in the backseat to their profits. This was absurd. The real aristocracy of America was put to death during the Yankee invasion. All the industrial interest were just pretenders and could never be aristocracy.
This isn’t really true. For one, while I quite like the Southern cavaliers, nearly all were Democrats or Whigs - not High Tories, and it’s near-impossible to have a functional aristocracy without that mindset.
Further, even the British aristocracy saw men of industry/commerce could become aristocratic in mindset after three or so generations of hereditary wealth, and transfered a good portion of its assets into equities as the century ground on
So yes, I don’t think Rockefeller was an aristocrat. However, Henry Ford acted like one - in many ways being an American version of the Earls Fitzwilliam in how he treated workers, though then his kids destroyed that - and JP Morgan, the Astors, and others of the New York elite, which was indeed aristocratic because of long-lasting Anglo-Dutch manorial estates and the mindset their owners inculcated, were relatively aristocratic. Carnegie was a more mixed case. But the American gentry generally, which was wealthy enough to not have to work much and quickly volunteered to fight when wars came up, were an untiled aristocracy and our industrial wealth helped keep that system alive here as it started to shrivel on the vine in Europe
This is an absurd claim and it’s a bogus criteria. From the first families of Virginia to John Taylor of Caroline and John Randolph, all the way through the Lees, Carters, Drayton’s and a whole host of other families to numerous to list, not to mention the growing Legion of gentility made up of planters and the cream of the backwoodsman, the South was the only place that had an aristocracy. That’s because the south knew how to lead men through command presence love of people and love a place. Merchant boys only know the love of profit and how to buy men. But buying men doesn’t give you the record that forest had in the Yankee invasion and leading the Klan to end reconstruction.
There was never a monolith of British that accepted merchant boys as aristocracy, in fact, the accepters were the minority. Allowing merchant boys into the upper class of Britain was always resisted by the actual aristocracy and only accepted by the weak and indebted among them. Which is how the Jews bought them up a generation before Cromwell and spent the next 250 years or so destroying them. The last dying in the great war.
The Dutch were worse than the English having been bought by Jews after they were forced out of Spain. Nothing from there after that migration is worth taking seriously.
Industrial wealth destroyed the aristocracy. You keep conflating being wealthy with being an aristocrat, which I explained is clearly not the case.
'Nouveau riche' is the definition of high bourgeoise as distinct from established landed aristocracy. It's purely semantic. Americans seem to conflate aristocracy with 'elite'. This leads to historical misunderstanding, because then you can't make sense of the transition from aristocratic culture to high bourgeois culture in post-French revolution Europe and US.
Yes this is very true
Quigley, in his “Tragedy and Hope,” writes very well about the transition and what it meant
What you define as American aristocracy would be regarded in the context of European culture high bourgeoisie. European aristocracy were 'landed aristocracy' who had inherited privileges and were an established elite. What you're talking about is quintessential 'nouveau riche', which is the bourgeoisie as opposed to the established aristocracy. Being the established generational wealth, ie., aristocratic descent, is definitive of European aristocracy. A 'self-made aristocracy' seems to be an oxymoron.
By the 1870s the land was more an accessory than basis of wealth, largely because of free trade related to grain, and the basis of the great house’s wealth was urban real estate, financial instruments, and American heiresses. Not in every case, of course, but in many
JP Morgan, who had an English estate, wasn’t really “bourgeois” in the same way that a shopkeeper is, and by the early 20th century, America was onto the 2nd/3rd generation, which in England was generally about the amount of generations it took for a family to become established
I understand, but the issue concerns the culture. The established elite of the 19th century was not culturally European aristocratic but high bourgeois. The issue is sociology. Also, I'm not talking about petit bourgeoise. I'd say that sociologically they're distinct.
I think that the Academic Agent, for all his faults, is close to the heart of this in the distinction b/w 'warrior class' vs. the 'merchant class'.
The high bourgeoise in Europe and possibly in the US took over the aristocratic European culture and reshaped it. Eg., I'd say that romanticism in literature and music is high bourgeois culture.
The problem seems to be that Americans kind of look at European culture from an American point of view. I see this also in American catholics, who seem to have a very odd understanding of Catholicism, to me anyway.
The bourgeois middle class in Europe were people who were very rich, often richer than the aristocracy, but lacked political power due to this fact.
The French revolution was a bourgeois revolt against l'ancient regime of the aristocracy.
It has to do with social order or status based on inherited title rather than wealth, and the culture that's associated with this specific class that emerged in medieval Europe.
European aristocracy developed a unique 'high' culture that distinguished it from the other social classes.
When the high bourgeoise took over, they reshaped European culture in terms of their preferred enlightenment 'universal' values, made it more egalitarian and democratic.
The communists were not satisfied with bourgeois rule as the final expression of enlioghtenment values.
They challenged bourgeois rule as not democratic enough, because they insisted on private property and social hierarchy based on economic wealth (rather than inherited titular status).
This also explains how Europe was socially stagnant under aristocratic rule, whereas abolishing this system leads to American style economic competition, because you can raise your social status by getting rich.
It then explains the current cultural degradation, not as a product of leftism or wokeism, but actually as the result of capitalist enrichment of the proletarian classes.
My argument is that when a large number of people moved up economically around the 1950s in the US, in a short period of time, there was no time for assimilation into high bourgeois culture as in 19th century Europe.
These Americans, esp. Californians, brought their plebeian blue collar culture with them, assigning it the status of high culture.
They insisted that their bluegrass and blues be given high status, even without any of the sort of classical rendering that the romanticists gave European folk themes.
That process was in effect in early 20th century US, and continues in eg., South America, but it stalled in mid-20th century leading to the great leveling and de-culturation, that was noticed in academic philosophy.
In other words, attaching social status to economic status can explain the great leveling and de-culturation that is most pronounced in the economically wealthy Anglo-sphere (a sort of cultural Dutch syndrome).
You can't really understand any of this, I don't think, without the transition from aristocratic to high bourgeois culture.
More on this here: https://x.com/TabaczynskiTom/status/1918254519286370432
Ah, very interesting.
I agree with much of this, but I do think the pre-FDR(ish) New York set, and before the War Between the States the southern gentry, were essentially aristocratic in lifestyle and outlook. Most were old families who had controlled their wealth for a long while, generally back to the colonial wars period, and were similar in taste to English upper gentry they did their best to imitate. Some of the new money assimilated into that; the branch of the Vanderbilts that married into the Cecil family (and is still around, owning the Biltmore as a result) is an example of success in that regard. Not all did, and it was gentility with American characteristics, but it wasn't essentially bourgeois in outlook or culture
With FDR and his taxes, along with the other social changes of that period, all that died, and you're certainly right about the culture that followed
Yes, I guess in a derivative sense they acquire aristocratic traits, but its questionable whether this is necessarily desirable.
There are two aspects of aristocracy that I would distinguish, potentially positive and negative.
The European aristocracy held their status by inherited title. Even if they lost of their money, they'd still have their title, and so rich bourgeoisie had to marry into aristocracy, eg., by marrying a broke aristocrat. I don't quite see how that would work in the case of the US elites who were rich rather than titled, so that if they went broke that'd presumably be the end of their social status and political power.
However, this to a certain extent meant that the European aristocracy were not as economically competitive (so regularly went broke), were interested in the arts, and had a paternalistic relation to the lower classes, hence perhaps less predatory and exploitative. If your status depends on your assets, that might incentivize vulture capitalism and conspicuous consumption.
As a Hans Hermann Hoppe ancap libertarian, I believe that elites are necessary but I don't believe in inherited titles. However, the problem is that the wealthy bourgeois elites often seek to consolidate their privileges by engaging in rent seeking, so that they become just as entrenched and corrupt as the European aristocracy, not by way of either merit or title, but by way of state largesse.
So I'm for 'natural' elites, but I'm against inherited titles on the one hand, or rent-seeking bourgeoisie on the other. Both, inherited titles and rent-seeking are only really possible in the context of a highly centralised state.