I believe Chomsky elaborated on this, below... The context is in a discussion where someone advocated representation by a sort of meritocracy. (In this case, it's IQ based.)
Tayssir
- - - -
ZNet forum: <http://forum.zmag.org:8181/wb/default.asp?boardid=2%20%20>
Subject: "Chomsky replies re meritocracy again..."
To be clear, let me repeat the passage from Jefferson making the distinction between "aristocrat" and "democrat."
The aristocrats are "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes." The democrats, in contrast, "identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest & safe...depository of the public interest," if not always "the most wise."
In Jefferson's sense of the term, you are advocating the position of the aristocrats. In the sense of this passage, the "aristocrat" could be the poorest homeless person in New York City, who believes that the meritorious should rule (as some probably do). Or it could be a slave, who believes that his master should rule. Your notion of "meritocracy," apart from the IQ criterion, is that of the aristocrats: your innovation is to regard "the higher classes" as those with higher IQ's, whereas Jefferson's definition of "aristocrat" is broader, referring to any criterion at all that identifies the "higher classes" that have some kind of right to rule. Other than that, your position is that of Jefferson's aristocrats.
[...]
This is a very familiar notion. During the first modern democratic revolution in the 17th century, there was great fear and fury about the popular movements that called for the right of the people to govern themselves, and demands that "the men of best quality" should rule. Your notion differs only in that you define "men of best quality" in terms of IQ. Note that Jefferson was not talking about a "privileged class of aristocrats." You are misreading the passage. Again, the "aristocrat" in Jefferson's sense could be the poorest and most miserable person in the country, even the world. Note also that the term "aristocrat" in his day was not used to refer just to landed aristocracy or anything of the sort. Thus de Tocqueville warned of "the manufacturing aristocracy which is growing up under our eyes" in the US, including small businessmen, which "is one of the harshest that has ever existed in the world" and would spell the end of democracy if it gained more power.
Bukanin's intellectual aristocrats, though spread across the board, are nevertheless socially privileged and hence view themselves as "better" and deserving of status and wealth just because they attended school. These sectarians cannot but think selfishly.
Bakunin didn't speak of "intellectual aristocrats." Rather people who take your position: that the "best intelligence" should rule. That's the standard view of intellectuals. E.g., Leninism, which holds that the vanguard party should drive the benighted masses to a better future. Or their counterparts among liberal intellectuals in the US, who held that the population are "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" who must be governed, for their own good, by the "responsible men," and that we should not "succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests." They aren't; the "intelligent minority" are the best judges, and should rule. You can find many quotes from leading figures from the Wilson- Roosevelt-Kennedy liberal tradition to this effect in writings of mine, which are only a small sample. The point here is that you are repeating the standard position in both the variants that Bakunin condemned, as do Jefferson's "democrats" generally. Like you, they believed that the general public must have the right to choose among the "responsible men." Your position seems to differ only in that you identify them by IQ tests.