This quote stood out to me, too. I'm not sure that the night would end in violence if it was the organizers of the dinner who took half the food. I feel like the more complete analogy is that 4 people organize the dinner (the elite 4). They make enough food for 1,000, distribute the best cuts out of about 100 meals among themselves, give the other 396 people 400 meals to share among themselves, and sell the other 500 meals to another party, pocketing an overall profit for their endeavor.

Would the other 396 look at the elite 4 in envy? Awe? Hate? Appreciation? Would they enjoy the 400 meals in a fairly equal way, or would they fight over allocations? Would the elite 4 encourage fair distribution of the 400 meals, or would they encourage in-fighting among the other 396, causing sufficient turmoil to distract the other 396 from organizing their own elite-and-profitable meals? There are a lot of scenarios that don't end in violence, even if a lot of people leave with a bad taste in their mouths.

I think it's a really interesting analogy, and it might even bolster the author's points about the importance of how elites behave and what systems they promote. It's too bad that the analogy was cut short with a reductionist assertion.