If you did NOT read the book, you should NOT review it. Period. What other people said about is what other people said about it. So you are just repeating verbiage from "trusted sources" and passing this off as original, independent thought. Are you auditioning for CNN, MSNBC, or FOX? Take a moment to reflect on what a farce your post is -- an effort at "me-too-ish" for what you hope is the winning or least the hipster side.
The terminology conflation is extremely frustrating and leads to confusion that can be exploited by the propagandists. People say "autocracy" while really meaning "tyranny"; "democracy" while meaning "freedom"; "capitalism" while really meaning "the human condition"; "socialism" while meaning "the welfare state", etc. etc.
Thank you. I am not a wise academic but nevertheless I benefit from and enjoy your analysis as I strive to discern what is going on with society at this time. I’ve had several wise dinner guests advise me that this mess is all related to Marxism and/or communism. While I deeply respect thme, this path just never made sense. In my estimation your Substacks make a compelling argument for our current societal dysfunction. And I agree that if we use the wrong words (click bait), we are simply cutting off a branch, allowing something new to grow from the tree, and quite possibly losing credibility for future battles.
I simply don’t understand why more great thinkers are not exploring the social dynamics of our current situation. I have to believe all these battles (CRT, Cultural Grooming, Censorship, etc.) are all related. If they are - we desperately need to diagnose that - and fast - because it sure looks like we’re going to be at each other’s throats soon.
You're on point. You've convinced me at least that Marxism (specifically your brand of it) provides key insights in this fight. Without it, I don't know that you would have been able to describe the enemy so well. Your analysis explains so many things that otherwise defy explanation in the current environment. The best example of this is corporations willing to take losses in promoting CRT ideology. This is clear evidence that the bourgeois capitalist class has been fully supplanted by the managerial class. We need to get James Lindsay on board, because I agree the lack of precision he displays will have grave strategic consequences. I think the right wing Marxism you describe explains the current situation very intuitively. It explains why very unpopular policies are the norm. I believe incorporating this class analysis with populist strategy is necessary to be successful. I'm thinking success involves some kind of deliberate partnership between bourgeois capitalists and the middle class to overcome the tyranny of managerial liberalism. Can I convince you that something like this is a more promising strategy than promotion of personal sovereigns?
>You've convinced me at least that Marxism (specifically your brand of it)
I am not an expert on Marxism, but according to what I read I am not convinced at all that Michael's approach has much to do with Marxism. It might be influenced by Marxist ideas (e.g. James Burnham who came up with the idea of the Managerial Class had been a Trotskyist in his early intellectual years.) At best it can be branded as "right-wing quasi-Marxism". It is gutted of Marxist Hegelianism, theory of value, and the inevitability of world-wide overthrow of Capitalism in the Proletarian Revolution.
The class theory predates Marx. Also, according to Marx, class divisions is the only thing that matters. Which is patently not true.
The only original Marxian ideas that are left in the analysis are class consciousness and false class consciousness. Are those enough to brand it "right-wing Marxism"? I do not think so.
However, branding does not matter much for me as long as the analysis and the ideas themselves are sound. It might become important, though, if these ideas take off.
Okay, so I’d never deny that, in using the phrase right-wing Marxist, I have a bit of a mischievous twinkle in my eye. And, heck, if I could contribute in any small way to a “revolution within the form” going the other direction, that would be totally cool. So, sure, there’s a bit of rhetorical strategy involved.
However, I do think you’re shortchanging the position a bit. Though, of course, we could debate endlessly what crosses the line from being “influenced by” to being “revisionism of.” But for the record, I see the core of a de-Hegelized Marxism like this: it is based upon an uncompromising materialism. Now, for Marx the foundation was economics – ironic considering what a fan of Darwin that he apparently was. Because of course the real foundation is biological evolutionary fitness. And there are three key proximate expressions of that foundation: economics, politics, and mating. (Culture is a kind of Venn diagram of those three.)
Then, a particular social order, manifesting these three proximate expressions, gives rise to specific phenotypes, which I’m happy to call classes. (Yes, class theory preceded Marx, but not that grounded class in the materialist logic of the social order -- and as I'd add, expressing biological order.) And as I believe all thought and speech is merely the projection of phenotypic self-interest (see my books Not for the Common Good and Biological Realism), Marx understandably argues that the ideas informing a society are going to be the ideology that sustains the dominant social order. That seems inevitable to me.
So, if the keys to a de-Hegelized Marxism, which does not believe in the human capacity for infinite perfection (what I say distinguishes right from left), is belief in a radical materialism that generates a fundamental class conflict, which informs the hegemonic ideology – then yes, I would insist I am a Marxist.
But it was my intention to explore and elaborate all this in more detailed posts over the course of the summer. I'm sure as I proceed you'll all be keeping me honest. *insert winking smiley face here*
> a particular social order, manifesting these three proximate expressions, gives rise to specific phenotypes, which I’m happy to call classes.
In my opinion this is taking things too far. Different races, ethnicities, cultures, religious sects, even genders are not classes in Marxian sense. I am not happy to call them such. (But again, I do not want to dwell on that point, as long as we know what we are talking about the difference is semantic.)
>Marx understandably argues that the ideas informing a society are going to be the ideology that sustains the dominant social order. That seems inevitable to me.
I think this is much more complicated. Consider Pinker's cheese cake and pornography examples.
This is analogous to people claiming that everything can be reduced to laws of physics. Well, good luck with trying to navigate the world based on that. You need an appropriate abstraction layer.
You say "abstraction layer". I think "level of analysis". Just like reducing the study of matter to the laws of physics is hopelessly complex to develop a robust understanding (chemical physics vs chemistry), thinking of human action in terms of physics isn't informative. As we change levels of analysis, are we really just getting more abstract i.e. ordinally biology > chemistry > physics? Based on you having the phrase "appropriate abstraction layer" handy, I take it you've considered this issue before. I would love to get your take on this https://grantesmith.substack.com/p/framing-the-problem?s=w where I'm essentially trying to frame this issue.
I knew that quote in Russian. When I looked up the translation I realized that there is a slight difference in connotation between the Russian and English versions. So I decided to look up and quote the original.
I've come to believe there is a higher degree of precision in German language that facilitates philosophical ratiocination. The fact that there is a difference in connotation between Russian and English for this apparently foundational quote is informative, thanks for sharing!
God damn I love the people here. This is great analysis, thank you! Theory of value, that is why I couldn't get through reading his work, but it tickles me that Marx was led off course as a legacy of Adam Smith's failure in that regard. I pulled up some old Rage Against the Machine and I think branding is going to be huge. "Know Your Enemy" still gives me goosebumps, especially now with my interpretation of the enemy as the managerial class hacks that make a living secondary to government diktat, credentialing etc. vs. a share of their contribution to increased organizational efficiency. I think a hat tip to Marx could get the wheels turning of some folks on the left, but I wouldn't want to do it if it isn't genuine. Would love to hear Michael's response to this.
Can you convince me? Yes, you have! In fact, you didn't even need to convince me.
And your comment emphasizes that I probably haven't sufficiently taken account of the need and value to clarify my position, especially since I've been so ham-handily (even if a little tongue-in-cheek) flaunting my most recent book on this substack. I'm even wondering if addressing this point maybe deserves its own post. But I'll start answering it here; if it gets too out of hand I'll turn it into a separate post.
So, the promotion of the idea of a return to personal sovereignty in the book was for me just the logical teasing out of the implications for the book's argument. If indeed as I argued the myth of popular sovereignty was the foundation (though of course more economic and technological conditions were required) for the hegemonic rise of the managerial class, then a renewed conception of sovereignty was required to eliminate the natural breeding ground for managerial class rule. I'd still stand by that argument as constituting the systemic, institutional, potentially long term solution. However, the only hope for such a governance structure fulfilling that mission would be implementation of the constraining conditions: what I called a porous polyarchy.
This substack though is dedicated to a more realist and pragmatic politics of the moment. From that perspective, my idea of a return to personal sovereignty would surely qualify as a form of Mosca's political formula. If I could wave a magic wand and magically live in the world of my choice, would that be it? Yes! Do I think that achieving such a governance structure is completely 100% impossible? No!
However, do I think it's actually a plausible option in any remotely near future? No. In that light, do we not have to look for more pragmatic, short term, possibly even improvised, solutions to the current state of things? Yes.
Notice the second set of answers don't have exclamation marks. I'm not as enthusiastic about the option, but it is the more realistic path. As I observed in the book, populism tends to ultimately further advance and legitimize the very conditions of managerial class rule. All a populist insurgency can do is push back the hands of the clock -- ideally for a couple of generations. But from a strictly realist perspective, that's the option one has. So, this substack is oriented toward exploring the theoretical underpinnings of how such an option might succeed in the present historical situation. How it might be theoretically informed sufficiently to avoid the pitfalls along its path.
And as my set of posts on the Canadian truckers emphasized, since the only realistic opening for an expansion of freedom that I see lies in Pareto's circulation of elites, the current moment requires a populist movement that either can peel off a rebel faction of the managerial class (probably nationalist in orientation) or some kind of alliance with the now mostly marginalized bourgeoise. Or, of course, some combination of the two.
So, yes, at least for purposes of the political project of this substack, Grant, you may consider me convinced.
We should do a podcast or something. You, me, John Carter, Chris Bray, maybe some of the guys from Harrison's group etc. Maybe eventually we could get James Lindsay involved (I bet he's pretty tough to get in touch with these days). I feel a sense of urgency to get a cohesive strategy together before total economic collapse starts eating into our free time.
Ah, yes. I guess at least a couple times now people have made suggestions along these lines in the comments section. And Harrison has been kind enough to invite me on MM at least a couple of times. Alas, I'm at that age where one has to come to terms with one's strengths and weaknesses. That sort of thing is definitely in the weakness category for me. I'm not especially verbally dexterous, nor am I particularly fast on my feet (in fact, that's an understatement). It takes me quite a while pondering to figure out what I want to say. Which is why I gravitate to the written word. I know it's very 19th century of me.
However, I'm fully supportive of such initiatives on the part of others with kindred outlooks who can effectively leverage the spoken word as a communication medium. So, don't let my reticence be at all discouraging.
I didn't realize there was such a short word limit in these comments. Fortunately I had the wisdom to copy before posting. So, my original comment goes on like this:
Notice the second set of answers don't have exclamation marks. I'm not as enthusiastic about the option, but it is the more realistic path. As I observed in the book, populism tends to ultimately further advance and legitimize the very conditions of managerial class rule. All a populist insurgency can do is push back the hands of the clock -- ideally for a couple of generations. But from a strictly realist perspective, that's the option one has. So, this substack is oriented toward exploring the theoretical underpinnings of how such an option might succeed in the present historical situation. How it might be theoretically informed sufficiently to avoid the pitfalls along its path.
And as my set of posts on the Canadian truckers emphasized, since the only realistic opening for an expansion of freedom that I see lies in Pareto's circulation of elites, the current moment requires a populist movement that either can peal off a rebel faction of the managerial class (probably nationalist in orientation) or some kind of alliance with the now mostly marginalized bourgeoise. Or, of course, some combination of the two.
So, yes, at least for purposes of the political project of this substack, Grant, you may consider me convinced.
Pro tip: sometimes the Substack web interface does not display the full comment when you just posted or edited it. You need to refresh. That's what probably happened here as your original comment does not seem to have been truncated.
If you did NOT read the book, you should NOT review it. Period. What other people said about is what other people said about it. So you are just repeating verbiage from "trusted sources" and passing this off as original, independent thought. Are you auditioning for CNN, MSNBC, or FOX? Take a moment to reflect on what a farce your post is -- an effort at "me-too-ish" for what you hope is the winning or least the hipster side.
Thank you for your insightful feedback.
The terminology conflation is extremely frustrating and leads to confusion that can be exploited by the propagandists. People say "autocracy" while really meaning "tyranny"; "democracy" while meaning "freedom"; "capitalism" while really meaning "the human condition"; "socialism" while meaning "the welfare state", etc. etc.
Thank you. I am not a wise academic but nevertheless I benefit from and enjoy your analysis as I strive to discern what is going on with society at this time. I’ve had several wise dinner guests advise me that this mess is all related to Marxism and/or communism. While I deeply respect thme, this path just never made sense. In my estimation your Substacks make a compelling argument for our current societal dysfunction. And I agree that if we use the wrong words (click bait), we are simply cutting off a branch, allowing something new to grow from the tree, and quite possibly losing credibility for future battles.
I simply don’t understand why more great thinkers are not exploring the social dynamics of our current situation. I have to believe all these battles (CRT, Cultural Grooming, Censorship, etc.) are all related. If they are - we desperately need to diagnose that - and fast - because it sure looks like we’re going to be at each other’s throats soon.
You're on point. You've convinced me at least that Marxism (specifically your brand of it) provides key insights in this fight. Without it, I don't know that you would have been able to describe the enemy so well. Your analysis explains so many things that otherwise defy explanation in the current environment. The best example of this is corporations willing to take losses in promoting CRT ideology. This is clear evidence that the bourgeois capitalist class has been fully supplanted by the managerial class. We need to get James Lindsay on board, because I agree the lack of precision he displays will have grave strategic consequences. I think the right wing Marxism you describe explains the current situation very intuitively. It explains why very unpopular policies are the norm. I believe incorporating this class analysis with populist strategy is necessary to be successful. I'm thinking success involves some kind of deliberate partnership between bourgeois capitalists and the middle class to overcome the tyranny of managerial liberalism. Can I convince you that something like this is a more promising strategy than promotion of personal sovereigns?
>You've convinced me at least that Marxism (specifically your brand of it)
I am not an expert on Marxism, but according to what I read I am not convinced at all that Michael's approach has much to do with Marxism. It might be influenced by Marxist ideas (e.g. James Burnham who came up with the idea of the Managerial Class had been a Trotskyist in his early intellectual years.) At best it can be branded as "right-wing quasi-Marxism". It is gutted of Marxist Hegelianism, theory of value, and the inevitability of world-wide overthrow of Capitalism in the Proletarian Revolution.
The class theory predates Marx. Also, according to Marx, class divisions is the only thing that matters. Which is patently not true.
The only original Marxian ideas that are left in the analysis are class consciousness and false class consciousness. Are those enough to brand it "right-wing Marxism"? I do not think so.
However, branding does not matter much for me as long as the analysis and the ideas themselves are sound. It might become important, though, if these ideas take off.
Okay, so I’d never deny that, in using the phrase right-wing Marxist, I have a bit of a mischievous twinkle in my eye. And, heck, if I could contribute in any small way to a “revolution within the form” going the other direction, that would be totally cool. So, sure, there’s a bit of rhetorical strategy involved.
However, I do think you’re shortchanging the position a bit. Though, of course, we could debate endlessly what crosses the line from being “influenced by” to being “revisionism of.” But for the record, I see the core of a de-Hegelized Marxism like this: it is based upon an uncompromising materialism. Now, for Marx the foundation was economics – ironic considering what a fan of Darwin that he apparently was. Because of course the real foundation is biological evolutionary fitness. And there are three key proximate expressions of that foundation: economics, politics, and mating. (Culture is a kind of Venn diagram of those three.)
Then, a particular social order, manifesting these three proximate expressions, gives rise to specific phenotypes, which I’m happy to call classes. (Yes, class theory preceded Marx, but not that grounded class in the materialist logic of the social order -- and as I'd add, expressing biological order.) And as I believe all thought and speech is merely the projection of phenotypic self-interest (see my books Not for the Common Good and Biological Realism), Marx understandably argues that the ideas informing a society are going to be the ideology that sustains the dominant social order. That seems inevitable to me.
So, if the keys to a de-Hegelized Marxism, which does not believe in the human capacity for infinite perfection (what I say distinguishes right from left), is belief in a radical materialism that generates a fundamental class conflict, which informs the hegemonic ideology – then yes, I would insist I am a Marxist.
But it was my intention to explore and elaborate all this in more detailed posts over the course of the summer. I'm sure as I proceed you'll all be keeping me honest. *insert winking smiley face here*
> a particular social order, manifesting these three proximate expressions, gives rise to specific phenotypes, which I’m happy to call classes.
In my opinion this is taking things too far. Different races, ethnicities, cultures, religious sects, even genders are not classes in Marxian sense. I am not happy to call them such. (But again, I do not want to dwell on that point, as long as we know what we are talking about the difference is semantic.)
>Marx understandably argues that the ideas informing a society are going to be the ideology that sustains the dominant social order. That seems inevitable to me.
I think this is much more complicated. Consider Pinker's cheese cake and pornography examples.
This is analogous to people claiming that everything can be reduced to laws of physics. Well, good luck with trying to navigate the world based on that. You need an appropriate abstraction layer.
You say "abstraction layer". I think "level of analysis". Just like reducing the study of matter to the laws of physics is hopelessly complex to develop a robust understanding (chemical physics vs chemistry), thinking of human action in terms of physics isn't informative. As we change levels of analysis, are we really just getting more abstract i.e. ordinally biology > chemistry > physics? Based on you having the phrase "appropriate abstraction layer" handy, I take it you've considered this issue before. I would love to get your take on this https://grantesmith.substack.com/p/framing-the-problem?s=w where I'm essentially trying to frame this issue.
commented there
> I have a bit of a mischievous twinkle in my eye
So I was not mistaken when I thought I caught a whiff of trolling there ;)
> we could debate endlessly
Right. This is extremely subjective.
>economics, politics, and mating
Aka food, power, and sex
Peeking a bit ahead, where do you place fashion?
> Marx understandably argues that the ideas informing a society are going to be the ideology that sustains the dominant social order
Yep. "Es ist nicht das Bewußtsein der Menschen, das ihr Sein, sondern umgekehrt ihr gesellschaftliches Sein, das ihr Bewußtsein bestimmt."
Quoting in the original German? Dude, you are totally elevating the standards of this blog.
I'd change social being to biological being, but, yep.
>Quoting in the original German?
I knew that quote in Russian. When I looked up the translation I realized that there is a slight difference in connotation between the Russian and English versions. So I decided to look up and quote the original.
I've come to believe there is a higher degree of precision in German language that facilitates philosophical ratiocination. The fact that there is a difference in connotation between Russian and English for this apparently foundational quote is informative, thanks for sharing!
God damn I love the people here. This is great analysis, thank you! Theory of value, that is why I couldn't get through reading his work, but it tickles me that Marx was led off course as a legacy of Adam Smith's failure in that regard. I pulled up some old Rage Against the Machine and I think branding is going to be huge. "Know Your Enemy" still gives me goosebumps, especially now with my interpretation of the enemy as the managerial class hacks that make a living secondary to government diktat, credentialing etc. vs. a share of their contribution to increased organizational efficiency. I think a hat tip to Marx could get the wheels turning of some folks on the left, but I wouldn't want to do it if it isn't genuine. Would love to hear Michael's response to this.
Can you convince me? Yes, you have! In fact, you didn't even need to convince me.
And your comment emphasizes that I probably haven't sufficiently taken account of the need and value to clarify my position, especially since I've been so ham-handily (even if a little tongue-in-cheek) flaunting my most recent book on this substack. I'm even wondering if addressing this point maybe deserves its own post. But I'll start answering it here; if it gets too out of hand I'll turn it into a separate post.
So, the promotion of the idea of a return to personal sovereignty in the book was for me just the logical teasing out of the implications for the book's argument. If indeed as I argued the myth of popular sovereignty was the foundation (though of course more economic and technological conditions were required) for the hegemonic rise of the managerial class, then a renewed conception of sovereignty was required to eliminate the natural breeding ground for managerial class rule. I'd still stand by that argument as constituting the systemic, institutional, potentially long term solution. However, the only hope for such a governance structure fulfilling that mission would be implementation of the constraining conditions: what I called a porous polyarchy.
This substack though is dedicated to a more realist and pragmatic politics of the moment. From that perspective, my idea of a return to personal sovereignty would surely qualify as a form of Mosca's political formula. If I could wave a magic wand and magically live in the world of my choice, would that be it? Yes! Do I think that achieving such a governance structure is completely 100% impossible? No!
However, do I think it's actually a plausible option in any remotely near future? No. In that light, do we not have to look for more pragmatic, short term, possibly even improvised, solutions to the current state of things? Yes.
Notice the second set of answers don't have exclamation marks. I'm not as enthusiastic about the option, but it is the more realistic path. As I observed in the book, populism tends to ultimately further advance and legitimize the very conditions of managerial class rule. All a populist insurgency can do is push back the hands of the clock -- ideally for a couple of generations. But from a strictly realist perspective, that's the option one has. So, this substack is oriented toward exploring the theoretical underpinnings of how such an option might succeed in the present historical situation. How it might be theoretically informed sufficiently to avoid the pitfalls along its path.
And as my set of posts on the Canadian truckers emphasized, since the only realistic opening for an expansion of freedom that I see lies in Pareto's circulation of elites, the current moment requires a populist movement that either can peel off a rebel faction of the managerial class (probably nationalist in orientation) or some kind of alliance with the now mostly marginalized bourgeoise. Or, of course, some combination of the two.
So, yes, at least for purposes of the political project of this substack, Grant, you may consider me convinced.
We should do a podcast or something. You, me, John Carter, Chris Bray, maybe some of the guys from Harrison's group etc. Maybe eventually we could get James Lindsay involved (I bet he's pretty tough to get in touch with these days). I feel a sense of urgency to get a cohesive strategy together before total economic collapse starts eating into our free time.
Ah, yes. I guess at least a couple times now people have made suggestions along these lines in the comments section. And Harrison has been kind enough to invite me on MM at least a couple of times. Alas, I'm at that age where one has to come to terms with one's strengths and weaknesses. That sort of thing is definitely in the weakness category for me. I'm not especially verbally dexterous, nor am I particularly fast on my feet (in fact, that's an understatement). It takes me quite a while pondering to figure out what I want to say. Which is why I gravitate to the written word. I know it's very 19th century of me.
However, I'm fully supportive of such initiatives on the part of others with kindred outlooks who can effectively leverage the spoken word as a communication medium. So, don't let my reticence be at all discouraging.
I didn't realize there was such a short word limit in these comments. Fortunately I had the wisdom to copy before posting. So, my original comment goes on like this:
Notice the second set of answers don't have exclamation marks. I'm not as enthusiastic about the option, but it is the more realistic path. As I observed in the book, populism tends to ultimately further advance and legitimize the very conditions of managerial class rule. All a populist insurgency can do is push back the hands of the clock -- ideally for a couple of generations. But from a strictly realist perspective, that's the option one has. So, this substack is oriented toward exploring the theoretical underpinnings of how such an option might succeed in the present historical situation. How it might be theoretically informed sufficiently to avoid the pitfalls along its path.
And as my set of posts on the Canadian truckers emphasized, since the only realistic opening for an expansion of freedom that I see lies in Pareto's circulation of elites, the current moment requires a populist movement that either can peal off a rebel faction of the managerial class (probably nationalist in orientation) or some kind of alliance with the now mostly marginalized bourgeoise. Or, of course, some combination of the two.
So, yes, at least for purposes of the political project of this substack, Grant, you may consider me convinced.
Pro tip: sometimes the Substack web interface does not display the full comment when you just posted or edited it. You need to refresh. That's what probably happened here as your original comment does not seem to have been truncated.
Clearly, I need all the Pro tips I can get. Thank you.