[In this comment I will be using various labels such as "Trotskyist", "Marxist", "Liberal", "reactionary", etc. Unless explicitly stated otherwise I use them for their denotation, not moral connotation]
Burnham started out as a Trotskyist. Although he later converted out of it and became one of the leading anti-Liberal intellectuals, it seems to me that the analytical tools he learnt as young stayed with him. And that's why he uses the term "class" when describing the elites that emerged around the turn of the last century. Where the "managerial class" extends the Marxist class taxonomy.
I like better a different approach, though. That which for lack of a better word can be described as the "caste" taxonomy. The one that is being popularized by the neo-reactionaries starting with Moldbug.
Not going into too much detail (and one does need to go into detail in order to really understand what they are talking about; please let me know if you are familiar with neo-reactionary thought) the society can be roughly divided into warriors, priests, merchants, laborers, career criminals, and untouchables (that last "caste" corresponds to Marxist lumpenproletariat.) Those castes are divided into sub-castes that are different in important respects (e.g. a general, a sergeant, and a policeman are all warriors; a Google principal engineer getting $1M a year and a janitor getting $15 an hour are both laborers, etc.)
Every stable society has warriors and priests on top as the governing and "surplus" elites. [According to this approach, by the way, Marx was wrong - the bourgeoisie merchants per se were never in charge, it was either the priests (e.g. the Dutch) or the warriors (e.g. Prussians) ruling on their behalf.] Priests are absolutely necessary to create and support the myths and the morals for the society to cohere and cooperate. Warriors (aka "stationary bandits") are necessary to protect the society from the "roving bandits" - see Mancur Olson.
Under this taxonomy the West is currently ruled by Priests (Harvard-types, lawyers of a certain kind, journalists, technocratic bureaucrats, etc.) - what you after Burnham call "the managerial class".
It may seem that the difference in approaches is just semantic, but let me argue that it goes deeper than that. According to Burnham's approach the managerial class is a relatively recent phenomenon, which makes it harder to make proper analogies and learn from history. According to the caste approach the managerial class is a modern manifestation of the priestly caste, something that existed for the whole of recorded history and can be analyzed and predicted based on that history.
Another important difference is that according to Marx class determines the class consciousness and interests. Thus a capitalist is a capitalist is a capitalist no matter whether he is Russian or American, in power or in the opposition, etc. Ditto a member of the managerial class.
According to the caste approach a Catholic prelate and a Harvard Progressive are both priests, but they espouse very different myths and morals, which lead to very different societies. Analogously, in- and out-of-power elites might be all members of the managerial class, but as priests they are very different, and their rule might lead to very different outcomes.
Sure, I am well familiar with the neo-reactionary positions. In fact my book, The Managerial Class on Trial, concludes on a rather neo-reactionary-ish tone. Not because I have any firm commitment to the position, but I do acknowledge that it does seem to be a solution well tailored to the specific dimensions of the problem. And I fully concede there can be value in other models of analysis. It would be unlikely that any one would have a monopoly on the truth. However, I also think there is merit in attempting to pursue the logic a specific model as far as it will go, to determine what truths it can reveal. The particular triangulation of biological realism, Italian elite theory and managerial class analysis is the model which this substack is dedicated to exploring.
Apr 19, 2022·edited Apr 19, 2022Liked by The Evolved Psyche
Dr. McConkey,
Finished your book. After couple of weeks will re-read.Thank you for writing it!
Some random points based on the first reading, those mostly reflect my immediate response without too much thinking:
- I liked the book for it summarizes in one place a lot of important ideas I have been exposed to over the last few years. Ideas I mostly agree with.
- The book would benefit from some editing. There are a dozen places or so where it's hard to understand the meaning because of poor choice of words and turn of phrase.
- I found that if one is not familiar with those ideas already, one would have a hard time figuring them out just based on their exposition in the book.
For example, this was the first time I encountered the concept of "artificial negativity". I did not really get it. Fortunately the book has rather extensive notes and bibliography, so I'll look it up "in the original".
Among other things this means that I cannot recommend it to my (older) kids - without the proper background they won't be able to make any sense of it.
- It is very important to stress and explain at length the idea that freedom does not depend on popular sovereignty. You touch on the subject, but imho not enough
- In general, I find various explanations based on the evolutionary theory as "so-so stories". For example, we can postulate the quasi-egalitarianism of forager societies based on anthropological evidence without using the (dubious) hypothesis of meat sharing
Hi. So, first thing, I’m always humbled and appreciative when anyone takes the time to read something I’ve written. First then thank you for taking the time and spending the money to read the book.
As for Dr. McConkey. That was really kind of an inside joke (between me and myself) no need for such formality, though again I do appreciate you were being considerate of the possibility that the title might have meant something to me.
Regarding your criticisms of the book: I almost entirely agree with you. Certainly, it would have benefited from a third party, professional editor. I’m actually quite a good editor, but no one is really a good editor of their own work. Having a professional go through it would have added real value to the book. Alas, resources were somewhat limited, so I had to do what I had to do. And I felt there was a bit of an expiration date, as I wanted to take advantage of the events of the summer of 2020 to leverage interest in managerial class theory. Maybe I was being too short-sighted.
As for the evolutionary theory being based in – did you mean – just-so stories, I’d have to disagree on that point. But I understand why many people feel that way. It’s a much longer discussion than can be undertaken in a comments section. It is my intention to flesh out the biological foundations of my ontology and epistemology in future posts, here. Though I provide a pretty-thorough beginning in that direction in my previous book, Biological Realism. (Though that one too you may find wanting in its editing.)
Finally, on the density of the ideas and lack of fleshing them out. That was not a mistake, but my intention. I could have easily made the book anywhere from twice to maybe four times as long by fully fleshing out all the ideas introduced and briefly discussed in it. I made the decision to not do that, but rather to provide something, I hope, breezier, while (as you observe) supplying sources to follow up for those who are interested in any particular set of ideas. I understand your criticisms, but if it had been three to four times as long, and much more painstaking in detail, I wonder if fewer people would have gotten through it, or even tried to read it. But I certainly agree there’s a limitation in what I chose. Everything has its trade-offs.
Incidentally, having come of age in the 20th century, it’s my nature to think of presenting ideas in book form, but I’m increasingly realizing something like substack is far more effective. I can do nice bite-size pieces on concepts, such as managerial liberalism, the psychorium, or the revolution within the form, (down the road, artificial negativity?) and in future posts, merely refer to them – as I did in the book – but provide links to those more contained discussions for those who want to follow up on the ideas. The power of hyperlinks! I’m discovering this may be a much more powerful writing medium than books. (Though, again, everything I guess has its trade-offs.) Maybe, I won’t even do books anymore. We’ll see. But I do appreciate your participation in the substack and taking the time to write your comment. All the best.
Apr 26, 2022·edited Apr 26, 2022Liked by The Evolved Psyche
> Regarding your criticisms of the book
I do not like the connotation of the word "criticism". It implies attacking. Rather, for me it's an opportunity to engage.
> did you mean – just-so
Of course. More evidence on the pitfalls of self-editing ;)
> It is my intention to flesh out the biological foundations of my ontology and epistemology in future posts, here
In my graduate school years I rubbed shoulders with some people at or near the top of the evolutionary theory. One of the takeaways was that a lot of things that are taken as proven facts by the educated public based on popularization literature are just hypotheses. And some of the hypotheses that sound plausible on the surface are very hard to steel-man with proper mathematical models.
My concern is that when ideas are presented as built on top of certain foundations and those foundations crumble, etc.
Unfortunately, he did not seriously engage with the more "controversial" ideas - the myth of popular sovereignty and monarchism. He essentially dismissed the former, insisting that we need more, not less, popular sovereignty including (may the Simulation have mercy on us) the direct democracy. And he just openly mocked the monarchical solution. I think this comes to show how deeply we all have been infected with Progressive ideas.
He also dismissed Moldbug/Yarvin as not serious. I am on the fence about this one. More precisely, I mostly take Moldbug seriously, the opposite is true of Yarvin.
Incidentally, Barnes admitted that he is aware of being a member of the Managerial Class (something you mentioned on this Substack)
[In this comment I will be using various labels such as "Trotskyist", "Marxist", "Liberal", "reactionary", etc. Unless explicitly stated otherwise I use them for their denotation, not moral connotation]
Burnham started out as a Trotskyist. Although he later converted out of it and became one of the leading anti-Liberal intellectuals, it seems to me that the analytical tools he learnt as young stayed with him. And that's why he uses the term "class" when describing the elites that emerged around the turn of the last century. Where the "managerial class" extends the Marxist class taxonomy.
I like better a different approach, though. That which for lack of a better word can be described as the "caste" taxonomy. The one that is being popularized by the neo-reactionaries starting with Moldbug.
Not going into too much detail (and one does need to go into detail in order to really understand what they are talking about; please let me know if you are familiar with neo-reactionary thought) the society can be roughly divided into warriors, priests, merchants, laborers, career criminals, and untouchables (that last "caste" corresponds to Marxist lumpenproletariat.) Those castes are divided into sub-castes that are different in important respects (e.g. a general, a sergeant, and a policeman are all warriors; a Google principal engineer getting $1M a year and a janitor getting $15 an hour are both laborers, etc.)
Every stable society has warriors and priests on top as the governing and "surplus" elites. [According to this approach, by the way, Marx was wrong - the bourgeoisie merchants per se were never in charge, it was either the priests (e.g. the Dutch) or the warriors (e.g. Prussians) ruling on their behalf.] Priests are absolutely necessary to create and support the myths and the morals for the society to cohere and cooperate. Warriors (aka "stationary bandits") are necessary to protect the society from the "roving bandits" - see Mancur Olson.
Under this taxonomy the West is currently ruled by Priests (Harvard-types, lawyers of a certain kind, journalists, technocratic bureaucrats, etc.) - what you after Burnham call "the managerial class".
It may seem that the difference in approaches is just semantic, but let me argue that it goes deeper than that. According to Burnham's approach the managerial class is a relatively recent phenomenon, which makes it harder to make proper analogies and learn from history. According to the caste approach the managerial class is a modern manifestation of the priestly caste, something that existed for the whole of recorded history and can be analyzed and predicted based on that history.
Another important difference is that according to Marx class determines the class consciousness and interests. Thus a capitalist is a capitalist is a capitalist no matter whether he is Russian or American, in power or in the opposition, etc. Ditto a member of the managerial class.
According to the caste approach a Catholic prelate and a Harvard Progressive are both priests, but they espouse very different myths and morals, which lead to very different societies. Analogously, in- and out-of-power elites might be all members of the managerial class, but as priests they are very different, and their rule might lead to very different outcomes.
Sure, I am well familiar with the neo-reactionary positions. In fact my book, The Managerial Class on Trial, concludes on a rather neo-reactionary-ish tone. Not because I have any firm commitment to the position, but I do acknowledge that it does seem to be a solution well tailored to the specific dimensions of the problem. And I fully concede there can be value in other models of analysis. It would be unlikely that any one would have a monopoly on the truth. However, I also think there is merit in attempting to pursue the logic a specific model as far as it will go, to determine what truths it can reveal. The particular triangulation of biological realism, Italian elite theory and managerial class analysis is the model which this substack is dedicated to exploring.
Dear Doctor, I ordered your must read book and will try to finish it first before commenting further on the usefulness of managerial class model.
[BTW, how do you prefer to be addressed on this Substack - since you are clearly not trying to remain anonymous, should I use your real name?]
I'm not particular. Thanks.
Dr. McConkey,
Finished your book. After couple of weeks will re-read.Thank you for writing it!
Some random points based on the first reading, those mostly reflect my immediate response without too much thinking:
- I liked the book for it summarizes in one place a lot of important ideas I have been exposed to over the last few years. Ideas I mostly agree with.
- The book would benefit from some editing. There are a dozen places or so where it's hard to understand the meaning because of poor choice of words and turn of phrase.
- I found that if one is not familiar with those ideas already, one would have a hard time figuring them out just based on their exposition in the book.
For example, this was the first time I encountered the concept of "artificial negativity". I did not really get it. Fortunately the book has rather extensive notes and bibliography, so I'll look it up "in the original".
Among other things this means that I cannot recommend it to my (older) kids - without the proper background they won't be able to make any sense of it.
- It is very important to stress and explain at length the idea that freedom does not depend on popular sovereignty. You touch on the subject, but imho not enough
- In general, I find various explanations based on the evolutionary theory as "so-so stories". For example, we can postulate the quasi-egalitarianism of forager societies based on anthropological evidence without using the (dubious) hypothesis of meat sharing
Hi. So, first thing, I’m always humbled and appreciative when anyone takes the time to read something I’ve written. First then thank you for taking the time and spending the money to read the book.
As for Dr. McConkey. That was really kind of an inside joke (between me and myself) no need for such formality, though again I do appreciate you were being considerate of the possibility that the title might have meant something to me.
Regarding your criticisms of the book: I almost entirely agree with you. Certainly, it would have benefited from a third party, professional editor. I’m actually quite a good editor, but no one is really a good editor of their own work. Having a professional go through it would have added real value to the book. Alas, resources were somewhat limited, so I had to do what I had to do. And I felt there was a bit of an expiration date, as I wanted to take advantage of the events of the summer of 2020 to leverage interest in managerial class theory. Maybe I was being too short-sighted.
As for the evolutionary theory being based in – did you mean – just-so stories, I’d have to disagree on that point. But I understand why many people feel that way. It’s a much longer discussion than can be undertaken in a comments section. It is my intention to flesh out the biological foundations of my ontology and epistemology in future posts, here. Though I provide a pretty-thorough beginning in that direction in my previous book, Biological Realism. (Though that one too you may find wanting in its editing.)
Finally, on the density of the ideas and lack of fleshing them out. That was not a mistake, but my intention. I could have easily made the book anywhere from twice to maybe four times as long by fully fleshing out all the ideas introduced and briefly discussed in it. I made the decision to not do that, but rather to provide something, I hope, breezier, while (as you observe) supplying sources to follow up for those who are interested in any particular set of ideas. I understand your criticisms, but if it had been three to four times as long, and much more painstaking in detail, I wonder if fewer people would have gotten through it, or even tried to read it. But I certainly agree there’s a limitation in what I chose. Everything has its trade-offs.
Incidentally, having come of age in the 20th century, it’s my nature to think of presenting ideas in book form, but I’m increasingly realizing something like substack is far more effective. I can do nice bite-size pieces on concepts, such as managerial liberalism, the psychorium, or the revolution within the form, (down the road, artificial negativity?) and in future posts, merely refer to them – as I did in the book – but provide links to those more contained discussions for those who want to follow up on the ideas. The power of hyperlinks! I’m discovering this may be a much more powerful writing medium than books. (Though, again, everything I guess has its trade-offs.) Maybe, I won’t even do books anymore. We’ll see. But I do appreciate your participation in the substack and taking the time to write your comment. All the best.
> Regarding your criticisms of the book
I do not like the connotation of the word "criticism". It implies attacking. Rather, for me it's an opportunity to engage.
> did you mean – just-so
Of course. More evidence on the pitfalls of self-editing ;)
> It is my intention to flesh out the biological foundations of my ontology and epistemology in future posts, here
In my graduate school years I rubbed shoulders with some people at or near the top of the evolutionary theory. One of the takeaways was that a lot of things that are taken as proven facts by the educated public based on popularization literature are just hypotheses. And some of the hypotheses that sound plausible on the surface are very hard to steel-man with proper mathematical models.
My concern is that when ideas are presented as built on top of certain foundations and those foundations crumble, etc.
----
Barnes reviewed your book on his (and Viva Frei's) Locals channel - https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/post/2032225/book-club-w-barnes-live-4-22-22
Unfortunately, he did not seriously engage with the more "controversial" ideas - the myth of popular sovereignty and monarchism. He essentially dismissed the former, insisting that we need more, not less, popular sovereignty including (may the Simulation have mercy on us) the direct democracy. And he just openly mocked the monarchical solution. I think this comes to show how deeply we all have been infected with Progressive ideas.
He also dismissed Moldbug/Yarvin as not serious. I am on the fence about this one. More precisely, I mostly take Moldbug seriously, the opposite is true of Yarvin.
Incidentally, Barnes admitted that he is aware of being a member of the Managerial Class (something you mentioned on this Substack)