I enjoy your admission toward the end of this page that you are a part of the managerial class and presenting your views in the tradition of a managerial class member. It forced me to admit that I am also firmly a symbol-manipulating member of the managerial class, which made me uncomfortable. (You triggered me darn it, and maybe that forced me to wake up a little more / grow / learn)
Yes, I can identify as a SubStack writer that those arriving mid-conversation are at a disadvantage. But then the disadvantage for them ( my readers only) is to have to slog through the long stew of posts I've already written. Even I am unlikely to do that to remind myself of what I've already written of. But on another note have called this beast we find ourselves in the midst of is the "Revenge of the Middle Managers". These insecure MM types become absolute vampire when allowed to take power. My endeavor is less of an intellectual endeavor than an effort to distill complexity using Occam's Razor.
I mentioned this before, but I'll repeat it here as a question: Traditionally the symbol manipulation class was the clerical/priestly class. Would you agree that the managerial class is a particular modern manifestation of the general clerical class? If "yes", is there anything we can learn from the history of the latter to help us understand the former?
I'd consider the clerical class to be another specific manifestation of the symbol manipulators, but certainly, directionally, I'd say "yes." As for the second question, did you check out the link in the sole footnote of the post?
As I've acknowledged on many occasions, my analysis is fairly described as right wing Marxism. I do define class in relation to the mode of production. Perhaps it was a bit cursory, but I did try to emphasize in this post that my approach was not strictly economic. I believe I said that I consider that Marx went astray by restricting himself to the purely economic. (Ironic, considering what a fan of Darwin that he took himself to be.) But as I did say, even if too quickly, economics is just one path of human biology. And class, insofar as its a product of propensity, aptitude and skill, is a function of biology. It can be debated the degree to which such things are heritable or ontogenetic, but they're still biological in either case. So, there's a path dependency between the variable of human biodiversity and roles played in the mode of production.
This is complex stuff, and in fairness I've never fully spelled out the theoretical foundations. I did intend to do so here, but my initial forays in that direction didn't generate much interest, so I shifted back to the current focus on a theoretical grounding for populism. I agree that I should do that, but this may not be the right spot for it.
If by social class you mean status and prestige, that too is deeply biological, driven by fitness interests. The correct realm for investigating it, though, I consider to be politics. So, I do think it is entailed in my analysis. But I agree I haven't focused as explicitly on it. But it certainly can be an important factor. For instance, in generating the motivation for Turchin's surplus elite to become class traitors or rebels and support or lead oppositional movements, including those of ruled classes -- like populism.
I enjoy your admission toward the end of this page that you are a part of the managerial class and presenting your views in the tradition of a managerial class member. It forced me to admit that I am also firmly a symbol-manipulating member of the managerial class, which made me uncomfortable. (You triggered me darn it, and maybe that forced me to wake up a little more / grow / learn)
Yes, I can identify as a SubStack writer that those arriving mid-conversation are at a disadvantage. But then the disadvantage for them ( my readers only) is to have to slog through the long stew of posts I've already written. Even I am unlikely to do that to remind myself of what I've already written of. But on another note have called this beast we find ourselves in the midst of is the "Revenge of the Middle Managers". These insecure MM types become absolute vampire when allowed to take power. My endeavor is less of an intellectual endeavor than an effort to distill complexity using Occam's Razor.
I mentioned this before, but I'll repeat it here as a question: Traditionally the symbol manipulation class was the clerical/priestly class. Would you agree that the managerial class is a particular modern manifestation of the general clerical class? If "yes", is there anything we can learn from the history of the latter to help us understand the former?
I'd consider the clerical class to be another specific manifestation of the symbol manipulators, but certainly, directionally, I'd say "yes." As for the second question, did you check out the link in the sole footnote of the post?
Yes, I even commented on it at the time. But quickly looking through it again I see that I thoroughly forgot it. Will re-read.
As I've acknowledged on many occasions, my analysis is fairly described as right wing Marxism. I do define class in relation to the mode of production. Perhaps it was a bit cursory, but I did try to emphasize in this post that my approach was not strictly economic. I believe I said that I consider that Marx went astray by restricting himself to the purely economic. (Ironic, considering what a fan of Darwin that he took himself to be.) But as I did say, even if too quickly, economics is just one path of human biology. And class, insofar as its a product of propensity, aptitude and skill, is a function of biology. It can be debated the degree to which such things are heritable or ontogenetic, but they're still biological in either case. So, there's a path dependency between the variable of human biodiversity and roles played in the mode of production.
This is complex stuff, and in fairness I've never fully spelled out the theoretical foundations. I did intend to do so here, but my initial forays in that direction didn't generate much interest, so I shifted back to the current focus on a theoretical grounding for populism. I agree that I should do that, but this may not be the right spot for it.
If by social class you mean status and prestige, that too is deeply biological, driven by fitness interests. The correct realm for investigating it, though, I consider to be politics. So, I do think it is entailed in my analysis. But I agree I haven't focused as explicitly on it. But it certainly can be an important factor. For instance, in generating the motivation for Turchin's surplus elite to become class traitors or rebels and support or lead oppositional movements, including those of ruled classes -- like populism.