Your central point about the convergence of both forms of government into a type of necessary aristocracy is fine, but the difference between aristocracy and meritocracy is that aristocracy is very often hereditary or arbitrary and thus not merit-based. You can't really use them interchangeably. In a true meritocracy, you wouldn't be in the "information class" unless you could prove usefulness beyond the king's personal, fallible, and mostly arbitrary judgement. Additionally, no one would be barred from joining the elites by anything other than their abilities, which is not the case for aristocracy.
Then you go on to do something weird and define the opposite of meritocracy as oligarchy, in other words rather than authority finding loyalty in smart people they look for it in resourceful people. But according to your own ethos (chapter 3), you want a society where having resources is a moral and intellectual virtue. That is of course what liberalist free markets combined with your American calvinist christianity basically is.
I would argue China is the pinnacle example of a country run by the information class, and it's actually what most of you guys want without realising it. A group of about 7-120 elites (depending where you draw the line), all with high information backgrounds, pick a general secretary to run the country. The general secretary works with his ministers to direct national economic policy and protect their power. Because it is secular, non-liberal, and centralised, there is little room for oligarchy to form.
You put "hereditary" in opposition to "merit-based," but merit itself is often hereditary. Children resemble parents. Aristocracy means-- etymologically-- "rule by the best," so the way we put it in opposition to meritocracy is ironic.
But I don't rely heavily on the terms in my argument since my use would be eccentric.
China's leaders wouldn't be "the information class" in my sense, because class is less abstract and more historically embodied than that. A class has a history and an endogamous network. But I agree there are strong parallels between the information class that has emerged in the West and the historic Chinese mandarinate.
I very much enjoy reading your thoughts. If you read more and keep sharing your reactions, I'll be extremely delighted and grateful. Welcome!
Your central point about the convergence of both forms of government into a type of necessary aristocracy is fine, but the difference between aristocracy and meritocracy is that aristocracy is very often hereditary or arbitrary and thus not merit-based. You can't really use them interchangeably. In a true meritocracy, you wouldn't be in the "information class" unless you could prove usefulness beyond the king's personal, fallible, and mostly arbitrary judgement. Additionally, no one would be barred from joining the elites by anything other than their abilities, which is not the case for aristocracy.
Then you go on to do something weird and define the opposite of meritocracy as oligarchy, in other words rather than authority finding loyalty in smart people they look for it in resourceful people. But according to your own ethos (chapter 3), you want a society where having resources is a moral and intellectual virtue. That is of course what liberalist free markets combined with your American calvinist christianity basically is.
I would argue China is the pinnacle example of a country run by the information class, and it's actually what most of you guys want without realising it. A group of about 7-120 elites (depending where you draw the line), all with high information backgrounds, pick a general secretary to run the country. The general secretary works with his ministers to direct national economic policy and protect their power. Because it is secular, non-liberal, and centralised, there is little room for oligarchy to form.
You put "hereditary" in opposition to "merit-based," but merit itself is often hereditary. Children resemble parents. Aristocracy means-- etymologically-- "rule by the best," so the way we put it in opposition to meritocracy is ironic.
But I don't rely heavily on the terms in my argument since my use would be eccentric.
China's leaders wouldn't be "the information class" in my sense, because class is less abstract and more historically embodied than that. A class has a history and an endogamous network. But I agree there are strong parallels between the information class that has emerged in the West and the historic Chinese mandarinate.
I very much enjoy reading your thoughts. If you read more and keep sharing your reactions, I'll be extremely delighted and grateful. Welcome!