You're fantastic at rebuttal, enjoyed this conversation. Lots of salient points to consider.

so aristocracy rises and attains a position and can lose said position and others can gain said position through some meritocratic non destructive method? If so that would be to some degree meritocratic given everyone had the chance to attain said position. I myself see the need for some form of symbolic aristocracy or such a class in society, much like a warrior class, however they cannot be barred to 99% of society propting merit. (mostly for the sake of making and creating a model)

Aristocrats do not represent the common interest, therefore cannot help but extract from it to suit their own interests

Apologetics to oligarchic clusters is laughable

There is nothing meritocratic or geniocratic about aristocracies

The social relation to production that this caste idea presents just offers a distinct regression backwards into history during the times of the small peasantry

Aristocracy based on merit does not exist because the virtue of inheritance of this caste power does not create geniocracy

Apologetics to the concentration of wealth and power for a quality that is not perpetuated is wrong

Aristocrats would actually care about principles while common people represent their own interests. Leaving decision to common people is like deciding Science based on voting by plebs

The entire history of aristocracy dilutes that silly claim until all that is left is shit water

For all of time aristocracies held the power and wealth and squandered it away from any lower caste peoples

Not very geniocratic

aristocracy is eh IF they are politically educated and know how to run a country

and have the people's interest in mind as well

but eventually due to them not being elected, rather born into it

It's like trying to say companies in a market are held honest because of consumer input

you get assholes who only care about the elites and themselves, they will only vote to keep the elites elite and the poor poor

@ChampionEmperor yeah it's almost like for all of time the privileged class and their bourgeois right perpetuates their positions for the interests of themselves

And not the principles of society

nope

I'm talking about an aristocratic system where they hold political power such as the nobles did

All systems with such power dynamic

I'm not talking about people with money, albeit that they do hold political influence with money to campaigns, I'm talking about significant power like a vote

I wasn't necessarily talking money

The power dynamic of politics is inseparable from the power dynamic of wealth

hmm

I see where you're coming from

I can agree to an extent however I don't find it so similar that it' is comparable to an aristocracy

like nobles

no its the same

The entire history of how Marx viewed it. The free market and trade liberalisation lobby by aristocrats benefitted poor people immensely.

No it benefitted merchants and pushed them into the dominant sphere of the economy

Yes and it raised living standards of poor which can be shown by increase in median GDP per capita

the concept of GDP how we know it didnt come about until after world war 1

long long long after private money making engendered capitalism

besides the "free market" and "trade liberalization" isn't quite how what happened

it was heavily mercantilism on the backs of the poor

Mercantilism slowly transitioned to fee markets. It is the poor/middle class who wanted mercantilism like they want in USA now. Rich people wanted free trade sonas to but expensive items

And after capitalism climbed as the mode of production your "free market" and trade liberalization seen during the Gilded Age didn't help the poor worth shit

and no, the poor and middle class do not want mercantilism

smh. They wanted mercantlism. They supported protection of local industries.