The Three-Class System of Modern Leftism

My first exposure to the three-class system was by Thomas Sowell, in his book, “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as Social Policy”. In that book, Sowell illuminates the self-anointed savior class, and the “benighted” class which is the public itself - the common man as well as any who disagree with the anointed vision.

”For those with the vision of the anointed, it is not sufficient to discredit or denigrate proponents of the tragic vision. The general public must also be discredited, as well as the social processes through which the public’s desires are expressed, individually or collectively, such as a market’s economy or social traditions. In short, all alternatives to the vision of the anointed must be put out of court, by one means or another. Nowhere is evidence considered so unnecessary as in making sweeping denigrations of the public. Mass psychoanalysis of society is common, exemplified by psychiatrist Karl Menninger’s view of crime:

‘Society secretly wants crime, needs crime and gains definite satisfaction from the present mishandling of it. We need criminals to identify with, to secretly envy, and to stoutly punish. The do for us the forbidden illegal things we wish to do.’"

Sowell also defines the anointed’s mascots:

”The ideals of “a government of laws and not of men’ and ‘equal protection of the law’ are at the heart of American constitutional law and the democratic process. Yet increasingly government has come to be seen as a way of benefitting particular groups adopted as mascots, often without much regard for what that does to other groups or the integrity of the system as a whole. Groups disliked, distrusted, of feared by the general public are particularly eligible to become mascots who symbolize the superior wisdom and virtue of the anointed.”

Sowell’s picture of the three-class system constructed by the Left is explanatory for virtually everything that the Left says and does. Yet it is deficient, if only slightly, in this one regard: the Left is not merely self-anointed; they are nothing less than self-anointed messiah-class saviors of everything in the universe, and their vision is not intellectual in nature, it is a psychological disorder which is not related to logic or evidence in any fashion.

Sowell followed with two books, “The Quest For Cosmic Justice” and “A Conflict of Visions”.

F.A.Hayek, in “Fatal Conceit”, defines Leftist rationalism as having derived thus:

”Rousseau’s heady brew of ideas came to dominate “progressive” thought”, and led people to forget that freedom as a political institution had arisen NOT by human beings ‘striving for freedom’ in the sense of release of restraints, but by their striving for the protection of a known secure individual domain. Rousseau led people to forget that rules of conduct necessarily constrain and that order is their product; and that these rules, precisely by limiting the range of means that each individual may use for his purposes, greatly extend the range of ends each can successfully pursue.

It was Rousseau who – declaring in the opening statement of THE SOCIAL CONTRACT that ‘man was born free and everywhere is in chains’, and wanting to free men from all ‘artificial’ restraints to which the owed their productivity and numbers, produced a conception of liberty that became the greatest obstacle to its attainment. After asserting that animal instinct was a better guide to orderly cooperation among men than either tradition or reason, Rousseau invented the fictitious will of the people, or ‘general will’ through which the people ‘becomes one single being, one individual’ (Social Contract, I, vii; and see Popper, 1945/1966:II, 54). This is perhaps the chief source of the fatal conceit of modern intellectual rationalism that promises to lead us back to a paradise wherein our natural instincts rather than learnt restraints upon them will enable us ‘to subdue the world’ as we are instructed in the book of Genesis.

And it is the instinct of the Left that they are the ones anointed to remove all restraints of civilization and to save the world by dominating it and eliminating all dissent.

Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom” says this:

”I use throughout the term ‘liberal’ in the original, nineteenth century sense in which it is still current in Britain to retain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control”.

Regarding the totalitarian nature of socialism, Hayek outlines a three point selection procedure for the elitists, after “setting for themselves a task which only the ruthless ready to disregard the barriers of accepted morals can execute”:

There are three reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. By our standards the principles on which such a group would be selected will be almost entirely negative.

In the first instance, it is probably true that, in general, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similar outlook we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people.

…

Here comes in the second negative principle of selection: he [the leading totalitarian] will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently [think government schools].

…

It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skillful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off – than on any positive task. The contrast between the ‘we’ and the ‘they’, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive program. The enemy, whether he be internal, like the ‘Jew’ or the ‘kulak’, or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.

My contribution to the conception of the three-class system invented by the Atheist Left is merely the observation that they consider themselves the moral authorities for all mankind; hence, they are the messiahs, saviors and moral elites who may not be questioned because it is immoral to do so. Those which must be saved are obviously Victims under the theory of Victimhood which the Left promotes. And the remaining non-conforming parties of all types are lumped into the single category of Oppressor Class (If you are not for us, then you are against us).