Global Ruling Classes Welcome Fascist-Led Government in Italy

By Luca Tavan

Republished from Red Flag.

The Italian general election was a historic win for the far right. A coalition of the three major parties won 44 percent of the vote, enough in Italy’s byzantine electoral system to form a clear majority in both houses of parliament. Most importantly, it was driven by the meteoric rise of Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, a party rooted in the post-Mussolini fascist tradition, which secured 26 percent of the vote, making it the single largest party in parliament. 

For many, the ascension to power of a fascist party in the centre of Europe seemed unthinkable. But decades of grinding economic crisis, state-sponsored racism and the discrediting of parties of the neoliberal centre have created a dangerous situation of far-right advance. With Europe on the brink of yet another recession, the prospect of further descent into authoritarianism and barbarism is alarming. 

If you listen to the capitalist press and politicians, however, you would think that there’s nothing to worry about. A headline in the Australian exhorts: “Relax, Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers aren’t fascist”. The Australian Financial Review carried the line, “Victory to Italian right is no lurch into extremism”. This is despite Meloni’s pledge to institute a naval blockade to stop refugee ships, roll back abortion and LGBTI rights and dismantle social welfare. 

Speaking to an Italian journalist at the Venice Film Festival, US former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even praised Meloni: “The election of the first woman prime minister in a country always represents a break with the past, and that is certainly a good thing”. It’s remarkable to speak of “breaking with the past” as Mussolini-nostalgists return to power in the birthplace of fascism. 

A statement from Lorenzo Codogno, a former director-general of the Italian Treasury, reveals the real reason for establishment nonchalance in the face of fascism. “They want to be perceived as a party that you can do business with and can govern the country.” Business has taken a look at this coalition of far-right racists and fascists, and decided it’s a government they can deal with, potentially making a great deal of money. 

Aided by a wave of apologetics from the media, Meloni has attempted to sanitise her image to present a respectable face. During the election campaign, she reassured voters that her party had “handed fascism over to history for decades now”. But Meloni has maintained a commitment to fascist politics throughout her life. At the age of 15, she joined MSI (Italian Social Movement), the party founded by leading fascists who survived the fall of Mussolini’s regime in 1943 and wanted to work for its return. Along with a series of other former MSI leaders, Meloni founded Fratelli d’Italia in 2012 as the latest iteration of this project. 

In her autobiography, I am Giorgia, she espouses the “great replacement theory”, claiming that the left is attempting to destroy Western civilisation by flooding the continent with African and Middle Eastern migrants and undermining traditional family structures. In local government, Brothers politicians have passed legislation making it harder for migrants to access social housing, and proposed laws that would make it compulsory to bury aborted fetuses in cemeteries. 

Meloni will rule in coalition with the Lega, led by Matteo Salvini, who as interior minister in a previous government blocked the entry of NGO ships carrying rescued refugees to Italian shores, and Silvio Berlusconi, the infamously corrupt and venal media magnate whose Forza Italia was once the leading light of the populist right. 

While the far right has been advancing in Europe since the 2008 global financial crisis, Meloni’s victory is a significant milestone. It’s the first time a party with neo-fascist roots has led a government in a major European economy. This gives a boost to the rising tide of far-right politics internationally. 

Meloni’s victory comes in the immediate aftermath of the major win for the far-right Sweden Democrats. She has been a vocal supporter of the Spanish Vox Party and Viktor Orbán’s authoritarian government in Hungary. Both Meloni and Orbán were guests of honour at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the most important gathering of the American right.

Meloni’s victory was assured by the craven support that every party of the political mainstream gives to unpopular and brutal neoliberal policies, which have created massive poverty and youth unemployment and savaged living standards. The 25 September election was triggered by the collapse of the Draghi government, an unelected technocratic cabinet headed by a former European Central Bank president to oversee further cuts to social spending. 

Every major party from the centrist Democratic Party to the Lega participated in this “national unity” government. Meloni’s group was the only significant force that remained outside of the coalition. As the government slowly but inevitably collapsed, the Brothers gained credibility.

The high level of abstention in the election was another important factor in Meloni’s success. The rise of the right can be put down to widespread revulsion at the political mainstream, rather than a popular endorsement of Meloni’s program. Fewer than 64 percent of the eligible population voted, the lowest turnout in history and down from an average of 90 percent in the post-WWII period. Meloni increased her vote largely by winning voters from the other right-wing parties. 

Despite a history of shallow anti-establishment rhetoric, a hallmark of the far right, Meloni will likely continue Draghi’s economic agenda. Meloni has also reassured the capitalist class that her government will support NATO. Internal divisions could emerge within the coalition over the war in Ukraine—Salvini’s Lega has ties to Italian capitalists with heavy investments in Russia, and he has questioned the continuation of sanctions. Meloni will have to balance the fragile and conflicting interests of her coalition partners with her desire to remain a reliable ally of European capital at large.

What is certain is that the new right-wing coalition will intensify attacks on workers and oppressed people. It can’t be ruled out that they will attempt to curb civil and democratic rights. The Brothers have already signalled their desire for legislation to ban what they term “totalitarian” or “extremist” ideologies, by which they mean communism and Islam.

The far right’s victory is a harbinger of things to come. A recent opinion piece by Edward Luce in the Financial Times noted: “Western liberalism is still skating on thin ice”, with war and looming recession in Europe, a protracted energy crisis and far-right electoral advances making for destabilising factors in world politics. 

The capitalists realise that in a crisis-ridden and polarised world, far-right governments may increasingly be an option for defending their power and privilege. They think that they are playing a clever game by normalising the new government in Italy. They believe that they can keep the fascists under their thumb, use them to absorb discontent at unpopular austerity measures and advance their economic agenda. 

History tells us that fascists like Meloni, who are inspired by the monstrous dictatorships of the 1920s and ’30s, may harbour even darker aspirations for the future.

Joe Biden and the ‘Passive Revolution’

[Artwork from the Tempest Collective]

By Ashton Rome

Though it appears that Biden has pulled off a revival of centrism amid an 'organic crisis', his honeymoon period will be short-lived as there is a crisis of legitimacy of the ideas, institutions, and coalitions that undergird U.S. neoliberal capitalism. During moments like this, the ruling class may attempt what Gramsci called a 'passive revolution' — implementing symbolic or limited change from above without fundamentally transforming social relations — in order to restore its hegemony and stave off challenges to its position within society. A key part of this process is the co-optation of demands from below, paying lip service to the goals of leading figures of the underclasses (organic intellectuals) while keeping the underclasses in a subordinate position. Passive revolutions have successfully been implemented many times throughout U.S. history. Learning to recognize the features of the strategy will help the left determine tactics to circumvent it and build our forces.

For some figures and groups on the left, Biden's victory and the Democrats' tenuous control of both houses provide the socialist movement with unique opportunities. According to journalist Zeeshan Aleem, socialists could ride into office on the coattails of Biden and the anti-Trump mood and be positioned to enact “policies that protect the poor and communities of color.”

Others believe that there is an ongoing "civil war" in the Party between its insurgent progressive wing and the neoliberal establishment and that the expansion of the Squad may open divisions further. Since the Democrats hold the Presidency and both Houses, the Party may have little excuse in the eyes of their social movement allies and working-class base not to implement a progressive agenda like universal health care. If they fail to deliver, so the argument goes, they will face their wrath. These socialists believe that the contradiction between the ‘Wall Street’ and social movement and working class of the Democratic Party base will also be on full display and play themselves out for ordinary people and be amiable conditions for winning people to independent politics.

Passive Revolution

But these optimistic scenarios are simplistic – all too similar to previous certainties about the collapse of capitalism. Within the socialist tradition, this optimism was embodied in the 1st and 2nd Internationals. Both saw socialist revolution as the inevitable consequence of capitalism's economic structure and the unfolding of contradictions at the heart of the system. For them, the unfolding of these contradictions would result in left political consciousness leading to socialist political power. Though decades of capitalist crisis and revival since the early 20th century have tempered these beliefs, they still exist for some on the left who, fail to take into account how even during periods of organic crisis, the ruling class can resist or prevent opposition.

During this period of organic crisis, the key challenge for the elites is to address parts of the crisis that constrain their ability to reap profit while containing popular demands and counter-hegemonic movements. Whether cyclical or organic, crises have a resetting characteristic to them, often spurring innovation and reducing the tendency towards overaccumulation. They can also lead to the development of more ‘appropriate’ ruling coalitions and forms of social control and governance. Organic crises, which occur at all levels of society – economic, social, political and ideological – demand the construction of new practices and ‘norms.’

This was the case in the crisis periods of 1929 and 1945, and in the transition from Fordism and Keynesianism to neoliberalism beginning in the late 60’s and early 1970s. The crisis of representation and morbid symptoms caused by organic crises cannot be sufficiently managed through different modes of regulation. Though the capitalist class retains its leading position in society, it does not have the underclass's active consent, leading to a long interregnum.

Organic Intellectuals and Civil Society

In the United States today, the ruling class precisely sees Biden as the last hope for neoliberalism because of his decades in office and because of the support he has from the leadership of labor and social movements leadership who will attempt to negotiate bargains and discipline their constituencies to stay within the constraints imposed by the crisis.

But how does the ruling class legitimize Biden, who represents a system in crisis? Gramsci argued that hegemony needs the active support of civil society actors, or what Gramsci called “organic intellectuals," for the ruling conditions to be seen as natural and the ideas connected to them to be diffused throughout society. Organic intellectuals are the members of society that defend and promote the ruling class's interests within civil society.

A passive revolution involves a temporary dominance of political society (legislatures, the judicial system, coercive apparatuses) over civil society (NGOs, trade unions, chambers of commerce, etc.). Because of the trust that ordinary people have in some nominally reformist nonprofits, union leaders, and liberal politicians, civil society is an essential part of the ruling class strategy for keeping power while its hegemony is in tatters.

Gramsci used the term trasformismo—“transformism”—to describe the scenario where the subaltern's leadership is co-opted. This occurs while the movement is kept in a subordinate position and the ruling elite attempts to forge a resolution without popular challenges from below. Therefore, a passive revolution is a restoration of class power which new forms of governance and representation done in a more or less ‘peaceful’ way. Significantly, passive revolutions recognize that the subaltern does not have the organization and leadership to resolve the crisis on the basis of a transformation of the system. It is mainly preventative in effect.

Nationalism (with a 'woke' redemptive script) is essential in this period because it allows the elite to identify its own interests as the interests of the whole and depoliticize questions of economic and political aims. Organic intellectuals can help popularize these narratives. The seeming ‘popular frontism’ against Trump, fascism and the far right is an example of this. The anti-fascism of Biden consists of forces nominally against Trump - from George W. Bush era establishment Republicans to social democratic politicians, tasked with ‘restoring American values.' Most importantly, its discourse leaves untouched questions of the conditions that brought Trumpism in the first place. Or when questions do come up about those conditions, organic intellectuals argue that they are meant for a later day -  after the right is defeated.

A History of Passive Revolutions in the U.S.

The ruling class has responded to various crises through passive revolutions: the Great Depression, the end of the Golden Age of Capitalism and after the 2007/8 crisis.

In response to the Great Depression, the existence of the Soviet Union, and the organizing efforts by socialist and communist activists, FDR and a section of the ruling class attempted a ‘revolution from above.’ The Democratic Party opened its ranks and built what came to be known as the “New Deal Coalition” - a coalition primarily of northern and midwestern industrial workers and their unions and white southern farmers. As the Democratic Party took up some of the demands from the left, labor dramatically increased donations to them and bolstered affinity to the Party. This ended up curtailing a serious attempt to push forward the organization of the working class by building a labor party like those were developing in Europe. For example, FDR took up demands to regulate child labor, and grant pension benefits and legal union rights from the Socialist and Progressive Party platforms. The result were new practices in management like Fordism, welfare systems and a more regulated capitalism.

The passive revolution helped bring about the ‘Golden Era of Capitalism’ from 1945 to the early 1970s, which was challenged significantly by the Black Power movements. The Black Power movements, which linked themselves to the national liberation movements in the peripheries, helped discredit U.S. capitalism and shift the balance of forces to the left during the late 1960s and early 70s. The U.S. ruling class initiated a two-part response: COINTELPRO, the War on Drugs, and mass incarceration (the stick) and black capitalism and integralist policies to appease the aspiration of the black middle class of the movement (the carrot). The latter resulted in more “black faces in high places” and funding for nonprofits below. The liberal, middle-class elements of the movement popularized a framework for analyzing ‘progressive’ attitudes towards racial justice that linked demographic representation in media, television and politics with social justice and political parity. Systemic critiques like socialism that sought to address class, race, and gender inequality were replaced by representative politics and diversity practices.

As Mario Candeias demonstrated in “Organic Crisis and Capitalist Transformation,” the transition to neoliberalism included the integration of trade unions and their political representatives into the project while keeping the subaltern in a subordinate position: “The first transnational wave of the neoliberal transformations weakened the power of workers, trade unions, social movements and Social Democracy; the second wave integrated their representatives into a social-democratic-neoliberal power bloc…; the third wave was an authoritarian turn, both with regard to international and to internal relations. The consensus faded away, but yet there is no visible alternative.”

The 2007/8 Crisis, the second crisis of the 21st Century, brought with it a period of polarization and radicalization through which we are still living. It also brought an end to a decades-long passive revolution that utilized politics of representation and funding for nonprofits to quell social movements. The radicalization of this crisis period was expressed in Occupy and the Black Lives Matter movement of which the latter included wings that saw the link between neoliberalism and the prison industrial complex. Some saw the need for prison abolition, which was a demand given a wider hearing during the subsequent BLM wave last summer.

As Chris Harris and William Robinson showed, a section of the black community voted for Obama to help end the economic disfranchisement and mass incarceration politics pushed during the  neoliberal period. The liberal ruling class saw Obama as an opportunity to contain the popular anger at the political establishment after the economic crisis and someone who could restore faith in neoliberalism and U.S. hegemony abroad. This was important, as in Europe the anti-austerity protests were leading to splits in establishment parties and the development of new political parties like SYRIZA and Podemos. When challenges to his neoliberal politics emerged, he used the coercive state to disciple them but particularly with BLM opened the ranks of the Party to the movement as well as corporate foundation funding.

Some Thoughts on a Left Political Strategy

Gramsci's concept of the passive revolution is important because it shows how opportune conditions for the growth of the forces of revolutionary socialism can come to pass unfulfilled or how leaders of revolutionary movements can be co-opted into the project of restoration of capitalist rule. Passive revolutions and the reforms granted in the course of them don’t just imply a weak ruling hegemony but also a weak subaltern movement.

This is an important starting point for understanding the challenges socialists face today as they attempt to help to rebuild mass organizations and labor unions and help to increase the militancy and combativeness of the working class in order to challenge capitalist rule. Understanding the challenges socialists face as well as the opportunities and openings is integral to developing a political program, slogans, and strategy to guide a counterhegemonic movement from its current consciousness, militancy and levels of organization to the left’s ultimate goal and historic vision. In order for counter-hegemonic movements to succeed they need organization, ideology and action.

Though the left faces favorable circumstances in terms of a crisis of legitimacy, the uptick of class struggle from 2018-19 was short-lived; though we have seen dramatic increases in the membership of independent political organizations like Democratic Socialist of America (DSA), the electoral successes of left Democrats and the rightward drift of the Republican Party has popularized lesser-evilism and the realignment strategy within the Democratic Party. This does not mean that leftists outside of DSA should orient away from the organization. DSA after all is where a lot of the debates about independent politics and socialist strategy are happening on the left. We must acknowledge that there is an ongoing process to co-opt the 'Squad' and make DSA a trend within the Democratic Party. The continued leadership and lack of left challenges to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer may suggest that the process is farther along.

An understanding of the ongoing Passive Revolution shows that we have to rebuild the working class's political organization and utilize united front style politics to expose ‘organic intellectuals’. The ability for the subaltern classes to successfully challenge the capitalist hegemony depend on their ability develop new political practices that challenge and don’t reproduce capitalist social relations. Institutions like an independent political party are crucial towards this end since they can help organize and unite the subaltern classes in common struggle.

It is crucial that socialists orient towards and join the spontaneous protests that will arise during this crisis, but our tasks within them cannot be restricted to merely attending protests and/or cheering them on. It is important that socialists help develop democratic spaces within them to allow ordinary people to determine its course and goals instead of by reformist leaders at the top. As well, socialists can find ways of adding to those debates by showing whether particular political tactics will help win the movement’s goals. This can be done by bringing to the movement lessons from historical counterhegemonic struggles and an assessment of the immediate impacts of tactics. Socialists can help radicalize them further by developing links between seemingly disparate issues like the environmental and housing crises by showing how capitalism is the root. Crucially socialists can warn movements of attempts by the ruling class to contain protests by taking up its demands and co-opting its leaders.

Challenging organic intellectuals are crucial because although the passive revolution has temporarily calmed a section of the subaltern classes, many are not won over. Organic crises necessarily involve a de-legitimacy of establishment figures and institutions (crisis of legitimacy). Though this can provide openings for the left it does allow right wing authoritarian populists like Trump to claim to speak for the interests of the “forgotten” against a “corrupt political establishment”.  Socialists have to acknowledge the ongoing threat of the populist right in this period, especially since the conditions that brought Trump and his ilk into prominence still exist.

The George Floyd protests in the summer and the siege at the capital in January presents an opportunity for the left that will be crucial as we enter a period of struggle once the ‘Biden Honeymoon’ ends. The siege reminded the masses of the threat posed by the far right and that racism is still a powerful organizing principle of which the police and other elements of the coercive state have a key role in upholding.

The radical wings of the George Floyd inspired protests re-popularized powerful anti-capitalist abolitionist critiques that can help provide the basis for a new ‘common sense’ and unite subaltern classes in common struggle in the coming period. Critiques that see mass incarceration and militarization of policing in neighborhoods and at national borders as a way for the ruling class to handle the increased surplus labor, inequality and political polarization that neoliberalism have a powerful explanatory and unifying quality.

But as we have seen, capitalism has proven to be an adaptive and resilient system and we have to aware of its successes at countering our movements if we are to be successful.

Dear Black America, Don't Let Them Fool You: We Cannot Vote Ourselves Out Of This Problem

By Christian Gines

Voting is not the way to solve anything for black people, oppressed people. First, reform does not work in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Every issue we hear talked about on the news, "this [issue] disproportionately affects people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, etc." This statement shouldn't be that mind-boggling. This system isn't made to benefit us in the first place, so why would a change in that system work in the first place. When a car breaks down, you put in new parts. If you continue to put new parts in a car, it will eventually break down. That is all these reformist polices are doing. If you're not abolishing the system, then you're just allowing the car to keep on going with new parts that will enable the car to run on fumes until it breaks down. Calls to abolish and defund the police are already being coopted into reformist policies to appease the ruling class. It shouldn't be that radical to call for an abolishment of a system that kills over 1,000 people a year despite being "reformed."

Second, voting is to subdue the masses to choosing between two evils and allowing them to decide what's acceptable and what's not acceptable in the realm of discussion. As Noam Chomsky eloquently put it, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that they have free thought, but the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." As a people, we have been taught and sold that voting is the only way to make a change in society. From talking to my parents, family members, and community members doing the peak of the 2020 Democratic primary, and now they are sold on voting as our only means of creating change. Saying we have to make the change within the system. Their stance on voting has been fed to them for so long that they will fight you to the grave on this, but it is so ahistorical that we need to disprove it today. Our ancestors didn't have the right to vote, and they achieved the abolition of slavery, end of segregation, right to citizenship, right to work, right to own property, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the removal of Jim Crow Legislation, the right to vote.

When you look at any change that has happened within the The US, the change has come from outside the system, not within. As James Connolly Said, "Governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class." When we vote, we are voting for whoever the ruling class has told us to vote for. Whether through endless spending with SuperPAC's or "black faces in high places," telling us who to vote for, we have no say in Democracy. As Malcolm X said, "Democracy is Hypocrisy." Voting is the way that the empire can keep us under control and keep themselves in power. The Black Panther Party couldn't vote, yet they had a Free Food, Free Housing, Free Medical Care, Free Busing, Free Clothes, and 50 other programs that we hear white liberals advocate for today. They were doing that within their community, and that's why Herbert Hoover fought to get rid of them. The BPP's initial government surveillance started because of their Free Breakfast Program. The settlers have taught us that's their way of governance is the best way, and we have fallen for that. We believe that we, the masses, and oppressed people can vote and change the system that was set up with the thought that either we weren't citizens, we weren't humans, or that we were too dumb, so there should be a safeguard.

The ruling class had a chance to maybe postpone a revolution in our lifetime with the compromise candidacy of Bernie Sanders. Sanders, running on a political revolution, had a tremendous amount of support from young people in general, but especially young black people. With his calls for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and other social democratic policies, they had a chance to satisfy the short term wants of most Americans. They had an opportunity to assuage the masses for a while, as they did with FDR's candidacy. The ruling class, though, was so caught up with their money and profits that they failed to see that Bernie Sanders was offering them. They were so scared that he would tax them that they colluded against him as they did in 2016 to ensure that their establishment candidate won. Now we are stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils again. We have one person who has been accused of sexual harassment and assault, an architect of mass incarceration (who refuses to apologize for it), and full of blunders. On the other hand, we have Donald Trump. I remember when people were saying that they will vote for Joe Biden over Trump because at least we can push him left. Now, this isn't an essay on whether you should vote or not, but I will say that we have had weeks of protest worldwide, and Joe Biden has not even inched to the left. He doesn't support abolishing or defunding the police department. Even Bernie Sanders said that he doesn't support defunding the police and says that they need more funding. This was the candidate who claimed that he was for the people, and he doesn't even support our demands. The Democratic Party has sold out black people for so long that it shouldn't be controversial not to support them, but we continuously have for decades. 

The façade that we can vote our problems away is one that we cannot fall victim to today. We have tried that time and time again, and what happens? The politicians run on something, go in there and don't do anything for our community. Black and white politicians alike have sold us out time and time again. To get real change, we must stay in the streets. As you see in Minneapolis, with protesting, burning, rioting, and looting, the change will come. If you support non-violent or violent protest is your prerogative. If you support the liberation of the black community and think that we must vote to get Trump out of office, that is your choice. But one thing is for sure. We cannot vote ourselves out of this situation because if we think that is the way to solve our problems, we will end up in the same place we started.

Christian Gines is a published student writer, poet, and activist whose writings discuss race within the black community and its effect on black youth.

Standardization as a Tool of Oppression: How the Education System Controls Thought and Serves as a Gatekeeper to the Ruling Elite

By Kali Ma

The "ruling elite" is a tiny minority roughly comprised of the nation's top 1% income earners who own more wealth than the bottom 95% of the population combined.[1] Those who make up this ruling elite are wealthy, mostly white, individuals. They are overwhelmingly educated at the most prestigious elite institutions and are the leaders in all major fields within society.

In order for this tiny minority to rule over the majority, it needs mechanisms in place to keep the majority from overtaking its power. Our standardized education system serves as a vital gatekeeper to the ruling class and legitimizes their power and authority. Standardization - or the use of pre-determined measures to judge individuals - is essential to controlling thought and promoting a particular ideology to the exclusion of all other perspectives. Ideology in this context means a set of values, beliefs and ideas shared by a group of individuals that reflects their economic, political, and social interests. For an ideology to become dominant, it must be accepted by the majority and serve as a lens through which most individuals view society. The more people interpret the world through a particular perspective, the more power those who benefit from that perspective gain.

Standardization is vital to perpetuating the elite's ideology and serves to: 1) legitimize the rule of those in power; 2) train individuals to obey and defer to authority, as opposed to teaching them critical thinking skills; and 3) exclude competing perspectives and people that threaten the interests of the ruling class. The education system is particularly effective in meeting these objectives because it presents itself as a system of merit where students are rewarded in proportion to their efforts. However, when we examine the education system more closely, it becomes clear that its structure heavily favors affluent individuals and those most likely to further the elite's ideology.

Legitimizing the Ruling Elite - The Myth of Meritocracy

Central to the legitimization of those in power is the myth of meritocracy, which consists of two main assumptions: 1) that individuals succeed in proportion to their abilities, and 2) that those in leadership occupy their positions because they are the most intelligent and talented individuals in society. It also asserts that anyone can attain this elite status if they possess superior abilities and talents.

As a result of these assumptions, meritocracy advances the philosophy that certain individuals are "superior," which legitimizes the rule by the "superior" few over those perceived as "inferior." This separation into "inferiors" and "superiors" takes place in our education system, which constantly ranks students based on standardized criteria. "Inferior" are those who, through inherent or self-created deficiencies, do not meet the "standard" and are, therefore, deemed unqualified or unintelligent. In other words, their voices and perspectives are silenced in favor of those who meet or exceed the standard. Persons deemed "inferior" simply become the subjects of power and thereby outsource their decision-making to a tiny privileged elite.

The most talented and intellectually "superior" individuals usually go on to attend our nation's elite universities. Contrary to the claims of meritocracy, however, students who attend these elite institutions are not necessarily more intelligent or talented, but rather enjoy the advantages of their socio-economic privilege.

Meritocracy Myth Debunked: Elite Schools and the "Intergenerational Reproduction of Privilege"

Elite universities play an essential role in generating new members for the ruling class and legitimizing their governance over the majority. Analyzing the process that produces this ruling elite is key to revealing how an affluent, mostly white, minority still remains in power today.

Instead of public schools, upper-class children attend exclusive private schools, expensive prep or boarding schools, and eventually enroll at our nation's elite universities. Throughout their lives, they are groomed to be society's leaders and are constantly reminded of their "superior destiny." As a result, they are confident about their abilities and view lower classes as subjects to be led, ruled, and guided.

The dichotomy between the upper class and everyone else becomes obvious when we examine elite institutions. According to a study, only 6.5% of Harvard students received federal financial aid in the form of Pell Grants, which are generally given to students in the bottom half of the income distribution. [2] This means that only about 6.5% of students from the bottom half of the income bracket were enrolled at Harvard during the 2008-2009 school year. Nearly three quarters of all students at elite colleges come from the top income quartile, while only 3 percent come from households in the bottom quartile. [3] The top 25% in terms of income are 25 times more likely to attend a "top tier" college than are those in the bottom 25%.[4]

Most high-achieving, low-income students outside of urban areas do not even apply to selective universities because of geographic and social barriers. [5] Many lack the basic information about "top-tier" institutions while others simply do not know anyone who attended a selective university, and likely, sense that they do not belong in these schools.[6]

Admission into elite universities heavily favors the privileged in several ways, including: preference given to family legacy students, those who can afford to pay full tuition, and students who receive high scores on standardized exams for which tutoring is essentially required and usually quite expensive.[7] "Legacy applicants" who had at least one parent graduate from an elite institution are up to 45% more likely to be admitted to that school.[8] On the other hand, a study revealed that during the admissions process, elite schools awarded zero points to low-income individuals for their socio-economic status, thus failing to acknowledge the obvious economic and social disadvantages those students had to overcome in order to achieve academic success. [9]

Clearly, privileged individuals have significant advantages when it comes to enrollment at our nation's "top tier" institutions. This, however, is not entirely the result of their own efforts as the myth of meritocracy would have us believe, but rather the socio-economic advantages tied to their affluent status. Notably, even members of the elite establishment have admitted that the system favors the wealthy: according to Anthony Carnevale - former Clinton administration appointee and current director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce -"The education system is an increasingly powerful mechanism for the intergenerational reproduction of privilege."[10]

Standardization Teaches Unquestioning Obedience

Meritocracy also assumes that all individuals are equally situated and can therefore be properly judged by the same measures. Merit is determined by extensive use of standardized exams that evaluate students' aptitude and rank them based on criteria established by the power structure.

Most schools today do not encourage children to think critically or express themselves in their own way; instead, they teach students how to best restate what they have learned. Individuals who memorize well and are able to repeat certain facts most closely to the expected standard are considered intelligent and reward with good grades and high scores on exams. Creativity, thinking outside the box, raising questions that challenge the status quo, and engaging with the learning material in a lively manner is simply not tolerated. Very rarely are students rewarded for their own critical thinking and creativity. A system that expects students to memorize and copy a pre-determined standard does not teach critical thinking or the sharing of different ideas and perspectives - it teaches obedience.

Proponents of standardized testing claim that the exams have the ability to assess students' abilities and predict future success. Standardization teaches us early on that there is a prevailing, dominant measure by which all people can be legitimately judged. As a result, it effectively promotes only one type of assessment based on the values of the dominant ideology to the exclusion of all other measures and perspectives. In other words, students are taught to believe that only one particular set of skills is valuable and that there is only one type of "intelligence" worth expressing. Standardization is, in effect, an authoritarian mechanism that measures a student's compliance to a set of criteria or answers deemed "correct" by those in authority. There is no independent critical or analytical thinking involved, which is exactly the type of intelligence the ruling elite - who depend on an obedient and unquestioning populace - counts on.

The values the dominant ideology promotes directly and indirectly through standardization are: unquestioning obedience to authority; the importance of such obedience; the belief that only certain skills and types of intelligence are "superior"; and that those in authority are the most qualified to occupy positions of power. These values and beliefs provide great deference to authority and obviously benefit the ruling elite.

Standardized exam performance also has a considerable impact on one's future educational and life opportunities; thus, it is a highly effective mechanism for separating individuals into their respective socio-economic ranks. The fact that standardized exams produce results that disproportionately disenfranchise minorities and lower classes is key to eliminating competition and securing the power of the ruling elite.

Standardized Testing: A Mechanism for Exclusion

Keeping the ranks of power homogeneous is essential to promoting a particular ideology that benefits the ruling class. Different perspectives and "outsiders" are a direct threat unless, of course, they can be assimilated into the system and used to promote its agenda. The mechanisms by which individuals are excluded are mostly covert and appear under the cloak of meritocracy which asserts that the "best and the brightest" naturally succeed.

Exclusion Based on Economic Status, Race, and Ideology

Racial and economic inequalities are ongoing problems that have never been properly addressed. In fact, economic inequality, which disproportionately affects women and minorities, is worse today than it was during the Great Depression.[11] In addition to pure racism, sexism and classism, systemic exclusion of most minorities, women, and the poor also serves to eliminate competing political interests and exclude different perspectives that threaten the interests of the ruling class.

1. Socio-Economic Exclusion

Most universities, including elite institutions, still use standardized testing as an important factor in admissions. Test scores from the SAT show white, wealthy students consistently outperforming minorities and the economically disadvantaged by a wide margin. [12] The results imply that the most intelligent and successful individuals within our society are wealthy whites.

Based on these results we can either believe that: a) the tests are legitimate and that minorities and economically disadvantaged individuals areinherently inferior to white, wealthy students OR, b) that minorities and economically disadvantaged students are not inherently inferior, and that the tests are illegitimate as assessors of intelligence and predictors of future success. If we believe that the tests are legitimate and that students perform poorly because of financial disadvantages, then we must still reject this unfair assessment that disproportionally affects economically disadvantaged students.

According to Edwin Black, author of the War Against the Weak, standardized exams such as the SAT serve as "vehicles for cultural exclusion." [13] Research linking test performance to family income suggests that what these exams really measure are an individual's access to certain resources like test preparation classes, tutoring, and private school education. [14] A study recently found that a student's socio-economic background has a "considerable" impact on his or her secondary educational achievements, particularly in the United States.[15] Standardized testing exploits this disadvantage and efficiently keeps people in their respective socio-economic ranks.

With so much emphasis placed on standardized testing, it is the perfect tool to prevent individuals from rising above their economic statuses in a seemingly legitimate way. Generally speaking, unless a person is well-connected - which often comes with wealth and social status - they are unlikely to do much better economically than their parents.

By continuing to legitimize standardized exams, it seems that we as a society have accepted the belief - consciously or not - that wealthy (mostly white) individuals are inherently superior. Interestingly, the origins of standardized testing are grounded in this exact racist and classist belief.

2. Racial Exclusion

Standardized exams and I.Q. tests emerged in the early 1900s and were extensively promoted by the eugenics movement. [16] The premise of eugenics was that Nordic, upper class whites were inherently superior and more intelligent than other races.[17] In the 1920s, Carl Brigham, a psychologist and figure in the eugenics movement, developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or what is now referred to as the SAT.[18] Brigham believed that whites born in America were inherently superior and more intelligent than other races, including southern and eastern European immigrants, whom he deemed equally inferior.[19] Eugenics was widely accepted throughout America's leadership class and heavily financed by influential organizations like the Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation.[20] Over a period of about 60 years, eugenics led to the forcible sterilization of 60,000 Americans who were deemed "unfit" due to race, social status or other "defective" traits.[21]

Is it a coincidence, then, that privileged white students disproportionately outperform minorities and economically disadvantaged students on an exam created by a man who firmly believed in the superiority of white, upper class individuals? Do we honestly believe that privileged whites are inherently superior to everyone else? And what does it say about the ideology of our ruling elite when some of its most influential members like the Carnegie and Rockefeller families financed an overtly racist and classist movement that led to the forcible sterilization of 60,000 people?

It is no coincidence that standardized testing promotes a certain type of intelligence that happens to benefit white, upper class individuals. The classist and racist implications of standardized testing are evident in their origins and results. By shaping the perception that certain groups are naturally unintelligent, the system dehumanizes whole classes of people and effectively silences their voices. The results provide seemingly legitimate "proof" that minorities and the poor are inherently inferior and that they deserve to occupy a lower rank in society. In truth, however, our education system is a convenient excuse to justify the position of those in power while giving the appearance, through seemingly legitimate means, that this power was attained in a fair and just manner.

3. Ideological Exclusion

Discrimination based on race and class is an intersection of several issues: pure racism and classism as well as the elimination of competing ideologies and political interests that would - at the very least - significantly weaken the dominant ideology. The inclusion of diversity is a direct threat to the homogeneous make-up of the ruling elite, which depends on its ideology to sustain its power. Being part of the ruling elite is not just about wealth, race, and social status: it is just as much - if not more - about sharing particular ideological perspectives that advance the interests of the privileged class as a whole.

For instance, while affirmative action programs have been instrumental in providing educational opportunities for racial minorities, they have mostly helped upper class minority students.[22] The fact that these programs assist mostly privileged students further suggests that the system favors the wealthy. One reason for this is that upper class individuals share similar social and economic interests with those in power and are more likely to advance the dominant ideology because they themselves have benefited from the status quo. As a result, they are less likely to challenge existing conditions in any significant way and are not viewed as a direct threat to the system.

It is important to note that simply placing women, racial minorities, or economically disadvantaged people into positions of power does not guarantee a diversity of ideas or that our system will become any more just. We only need to look at our current leaders in various areas who, despite their minority statuses, dutifully serve the power structure. It is not about who embodies the dominant ideology, but rather what values and beliefs an individual actually represents. That is why standardization of education is such an effective tool - by imposing its own standards and values, the system shuts out all alternative perspectives that do not advance the interests of the ruling class.

"Success" within society most often reflects the extent to which a person obeys or furthers the interests of the power structure. This is true for individuals of all backgrounds and social classes. While some people from modest or minority backgrounds move up to the ranks of the privileged elite, they are few and far between and heavily underrepresented compared to their numbers within the population. Because success depends on obedience to the dominant ideology, there is a strong incentive to disregard one's own viewpoints and assimilate to the system's ideology. Obviously, not all individuals within society have identical perspectives; yet the system, nevertheless, compels most of us to suppress our unique experiences, observations, and impressions in order to prevent us from utilizing those perspectives to meaningfully challenge the status quo.

This repression is a direct consequence of standardization, which rewards obedience to authority and promotes a one-sided perspective to which all people are expected to assimilate. This is why the status quo is incredibly difficult to change: because we are induced and indoctrinated into a mindset that only benefits those in power and severely restricts our self-expression. Any perspectives or ideas that fall outside of the artificial norm are disregarded, and the people who express them often alienated or even punished.

The standardized education system is particularly effective in procuring conformity because it makes "success" dependant on obedience to the dominant ideology that represents the interests of the ruling elite.

Alternatives to Standardization

According to educators who support systemic reform, a student-centered approach to education would produce much more equitable results. [23] A more holistic model for educating students would, for instance: teach children leadership skills and social responsibility, encourage them to cooperate with their peers, challenge students to critically analyze current events, and teach them to construct well-reasoned arguments to defend their ideas.[24] This type of teaching style would actively engage students with each other and foster critical thinking that encourages various viewpoints to enter into awareness. Such lively engagement would undoubtedly reveal talents, strengths, and abilities that standardized tests are designed to disregard.

Eventually, assessment of students would become much more equitable, because each individual would express different skills and talents as opposed to being judged by a fixed, homogeneous standard. There would be no preference for one type of intelligence, which would make standardized testing irrelevant. Without standardization, the system would find it much more difficult to promote its homogeneous ideology, legitimize the rule by a tiny elite, and justify its obvious discrimination against the poor, minorities, and alternative perspectives that challenge its power.

The essential feature of standardization is that it presents information from the perspective of those in power. For instance, corporate textbooks bury important historical facts and recount events from the one-sided point of view of the ruling class - presidents, businessmen, diplomats, and generals - thereby silencing the voices of ordinary people.[25] Recognizing this disparity, the Zinn Education Project offers teaching materials to educators based on Howard Zinn's bestselling book A People's History of the United States. [26] The materials introduce students to a more a comprehensive and honest version of history viewed from the perspective of ordinary people. The lesson plans focus on the history of women, working class people, Native Americans, people of color, as well as historical figures who are often mischaracterized or ignored in traditional textbooks.

One teaching strategy promoted by the Zinn Education Project focuses on role-playing during which students imagine themselves as various individuals throughout history and contemplate the circumstances and realities those people faced.[27] This creative technique encourages students to directly engage with traditionally ignored viewpoints and offers an alternative to the homogeneous (and often misleading) version of history promoted by the power structure.

As these few examples illustrate, standardized education is not the only option. There are many practical alternatives that bring education to life and teach students the necessary analytical skills essential to understanding the world and viewing it in a more complex, accurate light.

Current Education System Is About Indoctrination

Conformity to a standard severely limits our possibilities and is a devastating waste of human potential that only benefits those in power. The eugenics roots of standardized testing reveal that these exams are not harmless assessment tools, but rather instruments of oppression.

When we analyze the outcomes our current system has produced, it becomes clear that its goals are not about educating students. The education system: disenfranchises the lower classes and racial minorities; makes academic success dependent on financial resources and obedience to the dominant ideology; imposes the same standards on all individuals, as opposed to cultivating their unique talents and abilities; silences different perspectives and expressions of intelligence; imposes standards that disproportionally benefit the privileged few; and teaches students what to think instead of how to critically analyze their environment.

These poor results are not a coincidence or even a result of widespread incompetence - the system is simply designed to fail. This failure only benefits the ruling elite who continuously remains in power, is never disenfranchised, never too poor to afford education, never "inferior" enough to occupy low-ranking positions in society, and whose perspectives are never excluded or silenced from the mainstream. The actual purpose of our education system is to indoctrinate individuals into the dominant ideology and eliminate perspectives and people that challenge it in any way. This exclusion is reflected in the homogeneous ranks of power, which overwhelmingly include wealthy, mostly white individuals who share similar political, social, and economic interests.

When power is concentrated in the hands of the few, it becomes easy to maneuver and manipulate. Mechanisms such as standardized testing are introduced by those in authority and are, therefore, effortlessly implemented into the system. We rarely, if ever, question the decisions of people in power because we have been taught to obey authority and defer to its "superior" judgment.

This is how a tiny 1% elite is able to rule over the majority without overt tyranny: by controlling thought, and in turn, behavior. The standardized education system is critical to achieving this objective and thus serves as a protector and gatekeeper to those in power.

Notes

[1] Andrew Gavin Marshall, "The Shocking Amount of Wealth and Power Held by 0.001% of the World Population," AlterNet, June 12, 2013, http://www.alternet.org/economy/global-power-elite-exposed

[2] David Leonhardt, "How Elite Colleges Still Aren't Diverse," The New York Times, March 29, 2011, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/how-elite-colleges-still-arent-diverse/?smid=tw-nytimeseconomix&seid=auto

[3] Thomas B. Edsall. "The Reproduction of Privilege", The New York Times, March 12, 2012, http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/the-reproduction-of-privilege/

[4] Jerome Karabel, "The New College Try," The New York Times, September 24, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/opinion/24karabel.html

[5] Josh Freedman, "Why American Colleges Are Becoming a Force for Inequality," The Atlantic, May 16, 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/why-american-colleges-are-becoming-a-force-for-inequality/275923/

[6] Marisa Treviño, Study: Low-income, high-achieving students think prominent universities are out of their league," NBCLatino, March 20, 2013, http://nbclatino.com/2013/03/20/study-low-income-high-achieving-students-think-prominent-universities-are-out-of-their-league/

[7] Kristin Rawls, "4 Ways College Admissions Committees Stack the Deck in Favor of Already Privileged Applicants," AlterNet, November 12, 2012, http://www.alternet.org/education/4-ways-college-admissions-committees-stack-deck-favor-already-privileged-applicants ,

[8] Elyse Ashburn, "Legacy's Advantage May Be Greater Than Was Thought," The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 5, 2011, https://chronicle.com/article/Legacys-Advantage-May-Be/125812/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

[9] David Leonhardt, "How Elite Colleges Still Aren't Diverse," The New York Times, March 29, 2011, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/how-elite-colleges-still-arent-diverse/?smid=tw-nytimeseconomix&seid=auto ,

[10] Thomas B. Edsall, "The Reproduction of Privilege," The New York Times, March 12, 2012, http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/the-reproduction-of-privilege/

[11] Annie Lowrey, "Income Inequality May Take Toll on Growth," The New York Times, October 18, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/economy/income-inequality-may-take-toll-on-growth.html?_r=0

[12] Scott Jaschik, "New Evidence of Racial Bias on SAT," Inside Higher Ed, June 21, 2010, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/sat

[13] Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows 2003), p. 85

[14] Sean F. Reardon, "No Rich Child Left Behind," The New York Times, April 27, 2013, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind/

[15] Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Economic Policy Reports: Going for Growth (2010), p. 187 http://www.oecd.org/tax/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf ; see also Dan Froomkin, "Social Immobility: Climbing the Economic Ladder is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries," September 21, 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html

[16] Black, 78-83

[17] Black, xv

[18] Black, 78-83

[19] Black, 78-83

[20] Black, 40, 93-99

[21] Black, xv

[22] Richard D. Kahlenberg, "Why not an income-based affirmative action?" The Washington Post, November 8, 2012, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-08/opinions/35503696_1_racial-preferences-race-neutral-methods-grutter

[23] Jesse Hagopian, "'Occupy Education' Debates the Gates Foundation (and Wins)," March 13, 2012, https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/13-4

[24] Jesse Hagopian, "'Occupy Education' Debates the Gates Foundation (and Wins)," March 13, 2012, https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/13-4

[25] Teaching A People's History: Zinn Education Project, "About the Zinn Education Project," https://www.zinnedproject.org/about/, Accessed June 18, 2013

[26] Teaching A People's History: Zinn Education Project, "About the Zinn Education Project," https://www.zinnedproject.org/about/, Accessed June 18, 2013

[27] Bill Bigelow, "A People's History, A People's Pedagogy," Zinn Education Project, https://www.zinnedproject.org/about/a-peoples-history-a-peoples-pedagogy/, Accessed June 18, 2013