I'm not very good about this substack thing. Basically I use it as a public place to store ideas, in case anyone is interested. But I throw stuff up and usually forget about it. (Unless there's comments.) I might send out one tweet to promote a new post and often not even that. So I'd have to beg your pardon if I haven't been conducting myself reciprocally, as per substack convention. I also don't spend much time reading other bloggers. Whatever reading time I have is invested in books. I'm just a book guy. So I don't want to be disingenuous to anyone who reads, here: recommending something I haven't read. But maybe there's a way. If I sent a post out saying, I haven't read these blogs, but they've recommended my substack, so if you like this one you might like theirs? Something like that?
I understood. I just wanted a strategy that would allow me to do that in a way I considered ethical, considering I'm unlikely to read the nearly dozen substackers who have recommended me. I think what I speculated upon is the way to go. I should be able to do that this week.
Here is something I have trouble understanding: most of this post refers to the time period prior to that of the managerial class becoming dominant (which approximately happened at the turn of the 20th century.) In particular, most of the "laissez-faire" reforms you mention (such as the inclosure acts) were done mainly for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, not the managerial class. Which, following your logic, means that the bourgeoisie was on the left at the time. What am I missing?
[I have a nagging feeling that you already addressed it in one of the previous posts, but can't easily find it.]
The enclosures in England were undertaken at the initiative and for the benefit of the land-owning aristocracy and the gentry. The aristocrats were actively involved in commercial farming (farming for the purpose of sale) rather than subsistence farming. The convergence of class interests between the land-owners and elements of the commercial classes became a foundational aspect of England's political economy. Ultimately this helped to weaken the rivalry between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in marked contrast to the situation elsewhere in much of Europe.
No, no, it's definitely the right question. And, if I remember correctly, I only addressed it in a footnote. Also, that footnote MAY be in one of the written but not yet published instalments to the series. And, wherever that footnote is, I only addressed it to the extent that I acknowledged that if this Michéa-inspired analysis is correct, than I do indeed need to reconsider the relationship of the bourgeoisie to the managerial class. Are they each then in fact simply the avatars of the different pro-French Enlightenment strategies: i.e., different phenotypes of the left? That seems to be the logical conclusion, but I'd want more time to ponder it before jumping on that conclusion with all fours. (Yes, I have four.)
Soon I shall feel better! (Intention determines fate. (Fingers crossed.))
I had not heard of that work! I loved The Art of Not Being Governed, less so Against the Grain, but a work of his that addresses the politics of measurement... Oh boy! I'll check out your post forthwith.
After much time researching this subject matter on perhaps a somewhat different track to yours, I came to phrase this unholy alliance as: "State and Market are siamese twins joined at the money system."
For me, there is something about how money 'measures' value by equating apples and oranges, as it were, that is a cultural or mass psychological error which asserts value can be measured. (This is a borrowed observation from David Graeber and Charles Eisenstein, and others.) Indeed, the very notion of accurate measurement itself, especially when applied to value, belongs to the ego-psychology of control. Control of Out There, of all variables, is necessarily part of civilisation's DNA. This means, to me, that State and Market (ancient markets have nothing to do with the state) are necessarily, inescapably, twinned expressions of this fundamental aspect of how civilisation does its thing. (Speaking in very broad brushstrokes of course.)
I'm slightly feverish today, so I hope this condensed blurb makes at least some sense!
This is a very valuable insight into what I now recognize to be a thrown-around idea/phrase: the free market. I'm particularly interested in learning more about the implications of the commodification of land, money, and labor, especially regarding its ties to culture, communal bonds, etc.. When I read the excerpt from Polanyi (#4 in your notes) suggesting that the subjugation of labor to market laws disrupted, rather, annihilated, the non-contractual organizations of creed, neighborhood, kinship, and profession, my thought was that of course the liquidation of these would serve the scheme of the left given that an individual with no allegiance to such organic organizations might then be provided with an easy pathway toward disloyalty to his community, and subsequent loyalty to his governing state. Is my assessment here relatively on point?
I hope it will make you smile to hear that I was reading Biological Realism this morning and am enjoying it so far. I'm only on page 20 or so, but having gone from that book to reading this, I have to say I feel as though the grey matter in my biophysical attic has some new additions.
Sure, I'd say that is on point. It's one possible outcome, though simply feeling no loyalty to one's community as a logical outcome of one's individualist commitment is of course at least as likely.
And thank you for getting the book. I hope it provides value for your investment in buying and reading it.
I'd like to share your blog, in fact, I already have once and generated 32 subs for it according to my dashboard.
If you return the favor and recommend me back, I'd be happy to do so again, especially so that people are exposed to this series.
I'm not very good about this substack thing. Basically I use it as a public place to store ideas, in case anyone is interested. But I throw stuff up and usually forget about it. (Unless there's comments.) I might send out one tweet to promote a new post and often not even that. So I'd have to beg your pardon if I haven't been conducting myself reciprocally, as per substack convention. I also don't spend much time reading other bloggers. Whatever reading time I have is invested in books. I'm just a book guy. So I don't want to be disingenuous to anyone who reads, here: recommending something I haven't read. But maybe there's a way. If I sent a post out saying, I haven't read these blogs, but they've recommended my substack, so if you like this one you might like theirs? Something like that?
I was just referring to the recommendation tab on your dashboard.
You can recommend other people's blogs.
I understood. I just wanted a strategy that would allow me to do that in a way I considered ethical, considering I'm unlikely to read the nearly dozen substackers who have recommended me. I think what I speculated upon is the way to go. I should be able to do that this week.
Here is something I have trouble understanding: most of this post refers to the time period prior to that of the managerial class becoming dominant (which approximately happened at the turn of the 20th century.) In particular, most of the "laissez-faire" reforms you mention (such as the inclosure acts) were done mainly for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, not the managerial class. Which, following your logic, means that the bourgeoisie was on the left at the time. What am I missing?
[I have a nagging feeling that you already addressed it in one of the previous posts, but can't easily find it.]
The enclosures in England were undertaken at the initiative and for the benefit of the land-owning aristocracy and the gentry. The aristocrats were actively involved in commercial farming (farming for the purpose of sale) rather than subsistence farming. The convergence of class interests between the land-owners and elements of the commercial classes became a foundational aspect of England's political economy. Ultimately this helped to weaken the rivalry between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in marked contrast to the situation elsewhere in much of Europe.
No, no, it's definitely the right question. And, if I remember correctly, I only addressed it in a footnote. Also, that footnote MAY be in one of the written but not yet published instalments to the series. And, wherever that footnote is, I only addressed it to the extent that I acknowledged that if this Michéa-inspired analysis is correct, than I do indeed need to reconsider the relationship of the bourgeoisie to the managerial class. Are they each then in fact simply the avatars of the different pro-French Enlightenment strategies: i.e., different phenotypes of the left? That seems to be the logical conclusion, but I'd want more time to ponder it before jumping on that conclusion with all fours. (Yes, I have four.)
Soon I shall feel better! (Intention determines fate. (Fingers crossed.))
I had not heard of that work! I loved The Art of Not Being Governed, less so Against the Grain, but a work of his that addresses the politics of measurement... Oh boy! I'll check out your post forthwith.
Excellent article!
After much time researching this subject matter on perhaps a somewhat different track to yours, I came to phrase this unholy alliance as: "State and Market are siamese twins joined at the money system."
For me, there is something about how money 'measures' value by equating apples and oranges, as it were, that is a cultural or mass psychological error which asserts value can be measured. (This is a borrowed observation from David Graeber and Charles Eisenstein, and others.) Indeed, the very notion of accurate measurement itself, especially when applied to value, belongs to the ego-psychology of control. Control of Out There, of all variables, is necessarily part of civilisation's DNA. This means, to me, that State and Market (ancient markets have nothing to do with the state) are necessarily, inescapably, twinned expressions of this fundamental aspect of how civilisation does its thing. (Speaking in very broad brushstrokes of course.)
I'm slightly feverish today, so I hope this condensed blurb makes at least some sense!
Coming clear through the fever. Hope you're feeling better soon. And thanks for contributing to the comments.
And, incidentally, on the politics of measurement, have you read James Scott's book, Seeing Like a State? You might find this past post of interest:
https://thecirculationofelites.substack.com/p/lessons-from-seeing-like-a-state
This is a very valuable insight into what I now recognize to be a thrown-around idea/phrase: the free market. I'm particularly interested in learning more about the implications of the commodification of land, money, and labor, especially regarding its ties to culture, communal bonds, etc.. When I read the excerpt from Polanyi (#4 in your notes) suggesting that the subjugation of labor to market laws disrupted, rather, annihilated, the non-contractual organizations of creed, neighborhood, kinship, and profession, my thought was that of course the liquidation of these would serve the scheme of the left given that an individual with no allegiance to such organic organizations might then be provided with an easy pathway toward disloyalty to his community, and subsequent loyalty to his governing state. Is my assessment here relatively on point?
I hope it will make you smile to hear that I was reading Biological Realism this morning and am enjoying it so far. I'm only on page 20 or so, but having gone from that book to reading this, I have to say I feel as though the grey matter in my biophysical attic has some new additions.
Sure, I'd say that is on point. It's one possible outcome, though simply feeling no loyalty to one's community as a logical outcome of one's individualist commitment is of course at least as likely.
And thank you for getting the book. I hope it provides value for your investment in buying and reading it.