How conservatives promoted bureaucracy and further undermined the market
Continuing my binge on James Burnham I found this article which I put at the head of this newsletter as the most consequential. It’s long-winded and in fact, I wondered whether I’d bother continuing it, but once I got into the section about two thirds through entitled “The “Conservative” Acceleration of Managerialism” it was worth it. It is a simple and compelling argument by a conservative that conservatives of the neoliberal era supported managerialism and further undermined the kind of capitalism they all imagined themselves or at least told others they were defending.
Devastating when you think about it. Still, one of the emotional drivers behind conservatism for many is its identification with the powers that be, along with anxiety that social order rests on their continued legitimacy. And whether right or wrong, Burnham argued that by as early as WWII, managers were the new ruling elite. Here’s the money passage from the article:
Blind to the economic realities underlying managerial society, conservatives have stumbled unawares between an unconscious promotion of managerialism and a hopelessly reactionary opposition to it. It should not be surprising, therefore, that they have been politically successful only when their platform aligned with managerial interests, however unintentionally.
Because conservatives refuse to acknowledge the differences between the economy of 1890 and the economy of 1990, they think that their enemy is the state. They fail to recognize that although the managerial elite uses the state as an instrument to acquire power, the real enemy is not the state but rather the managerial separation of political and economic power from the liberal social contract. In their confusion, they have done nothing to restrain the state, but the effect of their efforts has been to further undermine the political community as a whole, advancing only the interests of the managerial class.
The lasting effect of Reaganite conservatism was not the revival of the entrepreneur but the liberation of the managers. Reaganism did little to restore classical capitalism or “limited government.” But it did release capital and labor from the last vestiges of political responsibility and citizenship. The financialization of the economy that Reaganism unleashed was successful in restoring growth and increasing consumption, but it altered the configuration and incentives of the business community in such a way as to further enhance managerial power.
Far from a return to the capitalist concept of property, financialization represents the complete virtualization of it. … Superficial appearances notwithstanding, financialization is in essential respects a movement away from capitalism. In the managerial economy, financial exchanges function less as markets and more as instruments through which the managers increase income or consumption independently of the “real economy.” Accordingly, the political interests of the financial managers are far from those of classical liberalism. To them, freedom is nothing more than the freedom to acquire more managerial control. They often seek, for example, the expansion of the administrative apparatus provided that they are allowed to manage its finances.
I’m not a HUGE fan of Andrew Sullivan, but he’s produced two of my favourite podcasts of the last year for the same reason. In the first two links below he and his interviewee have a highly thoughtful and heartfelt disagreement about the way they see the world. And it’s compelling in all the right ways.
Sullivan is also an old mate of the always interesting Dominic Cummings.
The discussion is interesting even if Sullivan shows no interest in pressing him on the foreseeable shit show Cummings was instrumental in bringing about. On that question, I’ll leave it to Stewart Lee.
The two obstacles to tackling catastrophe: fossil fuel firms and environmentalists
An excellent piece from Noah Smith’s excellent Substack.
Giraffe performing triple somersault — with twist.
A friend e-mailed me with news that giraffe populations were ‘bouncing back’. To make a lame joke I searched YouTube for “giraffes on trampolines“. I turned up this stunning video.
What the West gets wrong about Putin
I know Harald Malmgren — a little — from Kilkenomics. He’s a former negotiator for four United States presidents, describes the inner working and personality of Vladimir Putin, after several meetings together, and how Vladimir Putin’s personality might tie with his international policy.
Share this post
Reading for the Weekend of Jan 22nd
Share this post
How conservatives promoted bureaucracy and further undermined the market
Continuing my binge on James Burnham I found this article which I put at the head of this newsletter as the most consequential. It’s long-winded and in fact, I wondered whether I’d bother continuing it, but once I got into the section about two thirds through entitled “The “Conservative” Acceleration of Managerialism” it was worth it. It is a simple and compelling argument by a conservative that conservatives of the neoliberal era supported managerialism and further undermined the kind of capitalism they all imagined themselves or at least told others they were defending.
Devastating when you think about it. Still, one of the emotional drivers behind conservatism for many is its identification with the powers that be, along with anxiety that social order rests on their continued legitimacy. And whether right or wrong, Burnham argued that by as early as WWII, managers were the new ruling elite. Here’s the money passage from the article:
More here
The best of Andrew Sullivan’s podcast
I’m not a HUGE fan of Andrew Sullivan, but he’s produced two of my favourite podcasts of the last year for the same reason. In the first two links below he and his interviewee have a highly thoughtful and heartfelt disagreement about the way they see the world. And it’s compelling in all the right ways.
Sullivan is also an old mate of the always interesting Dominic Cummings.
The discussion is interesting even if Sullivan shows no interest in pressing him on the foreseeable shit show Cummings was instrumental in bringing about. On that question, I’ll leave it to Stewart Lee.
The two obstacles to tackling catastrophe: fossil fuel firms and environmentalists
An excellent piece from Noah Smith’s excellent Substack.
More Here
High diving giraffes
A friend e-mailed me with news that giraffe populations were ‘bouncing back’. To make a lame joke I searched YouTube for “giraffes on trampolines“. I turned up this stunning video.
What the West gets wrong about Putin
I know Harald Malmgren — a little — from Kilkenomics. He’s a former negotiator for four United States presidents, describes the inner working and personality of Vladimir Putin, after several meetings together, and how Vladimir Putin’s personality might tie with his international policy.
Read More
Business leaders have to play a better political role
I summarised my view of Martin Wolf in this tweet. (Alas the article is paywalled)
Read More