The Elite

 The elite is a group that is completely different from the others. It can hardly even be called a class. The elite is quality, will, and morality. The history of the term "elite", its meaning, application and the meaning that different generations put into it.

In the 20th century, the concept of the elite was firmly embedded in sociological and political science dictionaries. It has entered, despite numerous objections from a number of sociologists, a number of areas of socio-political and sociological thought. The opinion that the term "elite", introduced into the sociology of V. Pareto, is unsuccessful, that the elitists, considering the elite as a subject of the political process, belittle the role of the masses, that it contradicts the ideals of democracy, has been repeatedly expressed in the literature, and by authors who adhere to a variety of political orientations — from communists to liberals. One of the founders of modern concepts of the elite, G. Mosca, tried to do without this term in most of his works. It is also opposed by a number of supporters of the theory of political pluralism, who believe that the term "elite", suitable for describing primitive political systems, is inapplicable in the analysis of modern democratic structures. However, when considering modern political systems, they consider it possible to use this term in the analysis of totalitarianism, when the elite—mass dichotomy may turn out to be heuristic. This is, in particular, the opinion of the British political scientists S. Mohr and B. Hendry, who claim, not without reason, that the theories of the elite are applicable to communist political systems, where power is concentrated in the hands of the leadership of the Communist parties, forming an authoritarian elite that controls all aspects of social life. Finally, radical democrats speak out against this term, believing that the presence of an elite in society means that it usurps power from the people (or at least part of this power); they believe that the very delegation of power by the people deprives them of part of their sovereignty (in fact, this idea was expressed by Rousseau, who believed that delegating sovereignty, the people loses it). But this inevitably raises the question of the technical ability to manage a society without an elite. It is known that R. Michels, followed by the majority of modern elitists, give a negative answer to this question.

There are also purely terminological objections regarding the fact that it is wrong and even immoral to use the term "elite", the etymology of which admits of no doubt that the best, most worthy people are meant in relation to those in power, among whom we more often see cynical, unscrupulous, cruel people; it is not for nothing that F. Hayek wrote in The Road to Slavery that "the worst are in power." The question arises: is it possible to use the term "elite" in relation to those in power, among whom too often there are the most resourceful, ambitious people who are ready to make any, most unscrupulous compromises for the sake of their love of power? But although all these objections have grounds, rejecting a term that reflects a certain socio-political reality, a certain social attitude, is in itself unconstructive. Since there is a certain phenomenon — the special role of the ruling minority in the socio-political process, it means that an appropriate term is needed to capture it. Another thing is that Pareto did not introduce the most successful term, but to look for a replacement for it with another one — "ruling elite", "ruling class", "ruling minority", "ruling strata", "controlling minority", etc. It doesn't do much good, because it will be a dispute about words. In this regard, I recall the position of B. Russell, who, referring to F. Bacon, said that it is enough to clarify the terms in order to eliminate most of the disputes that are being conducted due to different understandings of words. So, it is pointless to argue about words, it is much more fruitful to discuss not terminological, but substantive ones, first of all, about the place and role of the elite in the social structure of society, about whether it determines the social process, whether it is an extraclassical social group expressing the interests of society as a whole, as a number of authors insist, or whether it is the top of the ruling exploiting class, exercising state leadership in the name of maintaining a social system that places this class in a privileged position, allowing the masses to be exploited.