Does a society need a "ruling class" to achieve peak artistic and philosophical greatness, like Nietzsche argued?
If I am wrong or misunderstood, please correct me.
"If one wills an end, one must also will the means to it: if one wants slaves, one is a fool if one educates them to be masters"
Nietzsche was a believer in strict social stratification. He actually admired ancient systems like the traditional Indian caste system because he believed a rigid hierarchy was necessary to support a tiny elite of exceptional thinkers and artists.
I disagree. When a system suppresses a massive group of people or limits what they are allowed to do based on their birth, it does not protect excellence—it destroys it. Oppressed groups have their own unique skills and art forms that could enrich the entire world. By locking them into rigid roles, you stop them from ever showing those talents.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar made this exact point in his 1936 text, Annihilation of Caste. Ambedkar argued that a birth-based hierarchy is not just a division of labor, but a brutal "division of laborers." He pointed out that by preventing millions of people from developing their natural capacities, a hierarchical system intentionally suffocates latent intelligence and talent, which ultimately stops all of society from progressing.
Does a society need a "ruling class" to achieve peak artistic and philosophical greatness, as Nietzsche argued?
Or does a rigid hierarchy inherently backfire by suffocating the hidden genius and unique art of the people at the bottom?