[rgbgraph]

It helps that the “upper class” is mostly faux, and driven by fashion more than anything innate.

Zuckerberg is not upper class in the classical sense. He doesn’t have the resources or molding to truly be able to fuck off, live in the woods in a centuries-old mansion, rolling in debauchery and in complete disassociation from humanity.

I.e. if you know about them, they’re not upper class, but very high upper middle class (they still “work” and participate in vulgar activities like business, rather than utterly “worthless” activities that are driven by innate desire, not glorified peer pressure).

Mitt Romney is upper middle class. The Bushes are upper middle class. The Sacklers, the Clintons, the Kochs, Buffett, Gates, the Siemens, the Onassis’, the Waltons — all relatively new players, and haven’t yet been aged by centuries of absolute apathy and detachment. Ellison is definitely getting there.

I think the biggest difference between him and the rest are upbringing. Ellison was not raised upper middle class, and had little regard for his family and circle. He did not have countless other upper middle class people around him in his formative years to mold his soul into conforming with upper middle class sensibilities (make money, gain influence, be interesting, important, play the image game, etc.). And now he’s fucked off to Lanai.

The only thing that man values is himself and his capricious desires — that is what the upper class is. There is no internal need within him to conform to external pressures. The man is a cunt.

What about the rest of the list? They grew up in relative affluence, and the upper middle class sensibilities have been imprinted onto them. To use a pop-culture example, none of them are Logan Roys. They care how people view them — especially their intimates. They might feign thoughtless excellence, but deep down they’re driven by the external forces that molded them.

If there’s any amusing note it’s that the true upper class has more in common with the lower class than it does with the middle. The middle lives on lies and self-deceptions, while the upper and lower only care about themselves and their authentic desires.

For example, compare Roedean to Philips Exeter. The people are utterly different — and the wealth and money is but a surface measure.

[porknubbins]

I basically agree, with defining upper class as able to live on interest on inherited income and not having to work. The super rich tech founders don’t neatly fit into this class system because they have sometimes even more money than the old rich, but worked and still work and don’t have the upper class cultural attitudes.

[voisin]

Isn’t your distinction just a choice though? You’re saying, if I am reading correctly, that the upper class is restricted to those who don’t work / care for external validation and instead choose to live a life of leisure.

[cykros]

I'd say there's nuance to be had here. They don't just choose leisure, they, through generational practice and upbringing, can do so without completely becoming undone in the process.

See: what happens to most people who win the lottery, not having been first acclimated to that sort of wealth and leisure.

Look at the sorts of things the Victorian aristocracy indulged in. It's not that they couldn't instead have been diving face first into mountains of cocaine and very top shelf booze. They just also had the ability to pace themselves and find forms of leisure that weren't debaucherous, but nor were they work.

New money typically goes one way or the other -- it's that middle path that the old upper class manages to find a way to travel.