This was a good read. The term “elite” so often conjures up some power at the helm, a place of privilege, but in truth many prospective elites today often live precariously and are chronically underemployed.
BTW on a related note, maybe you have read my previous piece on elite overproduction in Czarist Russia? It documents a similar trend which undid the empire - the outgrowth of nihilism from elite overproduction and Czardom’s inability to absorb a growing, educated underclass.
But unlike in Czarist Russia, today’s overproduced elites are creating social positions for themselves en masse through appeals to politics & management - and the liberal language they use serves as a kind of social sorting, so individuals can stand out as an aspirant in this highly-competitive area. It’s really an etiquette, as Sam Kriss mentioned in his recent diagnosis of “woke-ism” which I tend to agree with.
But anyway, I especially like this bit in your essay: Alvin Goulder’s claim that the new class is “leftist” and opposed to capital simply because it wants intellectuals (ie the managerial state) to replace capital. Like a true Marxist, Goulder understands one’s social position reveals one’s real political demands, not moral appeals.
Somewhat related, but this mode of critique was made even earlier in Communist-aligned states - that the Party (ie intellectuals) had replaced capital. In the fmr. USSR, this group is loosely called the nomenklatura, but the most pressing critique came from Yugoslavia by Milovan Djilas who wrote of a “new class” some 20 years before Goulder. His book A New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System came out in 1957 and investigates how this new group has anointed themselves, replacing capital with a self-enriching and growing cadre within the state.
Thank you, Anton! I will read your essay with interest! Yes, I very briefly mentioned Djilas in my previous essay on new class theory (in an ideal world, I would've found a way to connect all these essays up into a larger and more cohesive piece). And I agree: Gouldner's focus on material interests is extremely clarifying and cuts through all the moralising in very productive ways.
I wonder just how far back this Burnham-esque critique of managerialism/bureaucracy of a modernist sort goes (as opposed to merely a focus on e.g. "quantification" meets clerisy or the like). There's this too from 1939: https://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm
That reading looks right up my alley. And interesting question, I’ve been meaning to explore turn-of-the-20th century literature which features anonymous bureaucratic complexity as an antagonist. The Trial by Kafka is a classic example, of course
The woke ascendency has indeed been highly successful in reorienting the new class towards loyalty towards the corporate structure, and has furthermore led to much finer-grained control over the workforce and population. This is at the expense of increased costs, greater alienation from the bulk of society, reduced efficiency, and declining technical innovation, all of which is leading to a precipitous decline in Western power on the global stage as well as a cratering material standard of living at home. As a stable long term solution it is greatly wanting.
This is very compelling. Dare I suggest a different term, to replace 'elites'? One that takes account of the self-conscious morality and victimhood exemplified by these 'tastemakers' or 'influencers'. And the proto-religious quality of their ideology. It's a term that will never catch on, because it too falls foul of a 'whatever you mean by x' problem.
But they seem, to me, to be a form of priest class.
I wrote, some time ago, that Wokeism's greatest strength is its wraith-like quality. Push back and it dissolves and reforms in roughly the shape it was before, unharmed.
What are these people if not the new Priest class?
Interestingly, Helmut Schelsky (whom I discuss in my earlier essay on "Alienated Elites") would agree with you. He called the new class "the new priesthood" in a book he wrote about the German New Left in 1974.
Yeah. His basic idea was that the "transvaluation of all values" that the '60s New Left looked to enact under "cultural revolution" was a form of iconoclasm, and after the smashing of the idols would come a new religion of sorts. This would purport to centre liberation and social justice but would really be a mystified smoke-screen for a kind of spiritual reboot of the system, only now with the icon smashers in power. A familiar story in the history of religions, I guess.
Given your previous research, what do you think the intellectual (here perhaps 'Vanguard'??) class ought to do? Are you suggesting that if the intellectual class wants to do anything, they must foreground their interests plain and simple, rather than clothing it in the garb of the current neolib order? Much appreciated.
I'm not sure I'm in a position to advise the intellectual class on strategy, but yes. I do think a key part of legitimising the intellectuals' political project over time has been posing as representatives of (or "experts" on) a class, grouping, or multitude other than themselves. (And indeed they also have a similar approach to institutions and bureaucracies.) This does have a distorting effect on intellectual discourse and self-understanding.
Ayn Rand presciently summed-up the "cultural revolution" (more religious cult) of the '60s New Left at that time in her publication entitled: "The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution."
We are now bearing, witnessing, and experiencing the overt and intentional destruction of virtue, value, and prosperity throughout The West in general, and the U.S.A. in particular. "By 2030, you'll own nothing and you’ll be happy." -- WEF
This is frightening, is my initial reaction. Partly because they doubtless know not what drives them in modern Wokeistan. This rarified stuff is more powerful than I ever appreciated.
To "diversity", "inclusion" "hate" and "the climate emergency" might be added "mental health" which will (in principle) allow a huge addition of credentialed workers who have a vast store of CDC readily available.
EDIT I missed "safety". Keeping people "safe" against unspecified risks. This is becoming dominant in UK with sometimes awful results
This was a good read. The term “elite” so often conjures up some power at the helm, a place of privilege, but in truth many prospective elites today often live precariously and are chronically underemployed.
BTW on a related note, maybe you have read my previous piece on elite overproduction in Czarist Russia? It documents a similar trend which undid the empire - the outgrowth of nihilism from elite overproduction and Czardom’s inability to absorb a growing, educated underclass.
https://novum.substack.com/p/elite-overproduction-a-story-of-russia
But unlike in Czarist Russia, today’s overproduced elites are creating social positions for themselves en masse through appeals to politics & management - and the liberal language they use serves as a kind of social sorting, so individuals can stand out as an aspirant in this highly-competitive area. It’s really an etiquette, as Sam Kriss mentioned in his recent diagnosis of “woke-ism” which I tend to agree with.
But anyway, I especially like this bit in your essay: Alvin Goulder’s claim that the new class is “leftist” and opposed to capital simply because it wants intellectuals (ie the managerial state) to replace capital. Like a true Marxist, Goulder understands one’s social position reveals one’s real political demands, not moral appeals.
Somewhat related, but this mode of critique was made even earlier in Communist-aligned states - that the Party (ie intellectuals) had replaced capital. In the fmr. USSR, this group is loosely called the nomenklatura, but the most pressing critique came from Yugoslavia by Milovan Djilas who wrote of a “new class” some 20 years before Goulder. His book A New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System came out in 1957 and investigates how this new group has anointed themselves, replacing capital with a self-enriching and growing cadre within the state.
Thank you, Anton! I will read your essay with interest! Yes, I very briefly mentioned Djilas in my previous essay on new class theory (in an ideal world, I would've found a way to connect all these essays up into a larger and more cohesive piece). And I agree: Gouldner's focus on material interests is extremely clarifying and cuts through all the moralising in very productive ways.
Right on, always a pleasure to read your stuff per usual. I'll have to pick up Gouldner's book!
Interesting!
I wonder just how far back this Burnham-esque critique of managerialism/bureaucracy of a modernist sort goes (as opposed to merely a focus on e.g. "quantification" meets clerisy or the like). There's this too from 1939: https://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm
That reading looks right up my alley. And interesting question, I’ve been meaning to explore turn-of-the-20th century literature which features anonymous bureaucratic complexity as an antagonist. The Trial by Kafka is a classic example, of course
The woke ascendency has indeed been highly successful in reorienting the new class towards loyalty towards the corporate structure, and has furthermore led to much finer-grained control over the workforce and population. This is at the expense of increased costs, greater alienation from the bulk of society, reduced efficiency, and declining technical innovation, all of which is leading to a precipitous decline in Western power on the global stage as well as a cratering material standard of living at home. As a stable long term solution it is greatly wanting.
This is very compelling. Dare I suggest a different term, to replace 'elites'? One that takes account of the self-conscious morality and victimhood exemplified by these 'tastemakers' or 'influencers'. And the proto-religious quality of their ideology. It's a term that will never catch on, because it too falls foul of a 'whatever you mean by x' problem.
But they seem, to me, to be a form of priest class.
I wrote, some time ago, that Wokeism's greatest strength is its wraith-like quality. Push back and it dissolves and reforms in roughly the shape it was before, unharmed.
What are these people if not the new Priest class?
Interestingly, Helmut Schelsky (whom I discuss in my earlier essay on "Alienated Elites") would agree with you. He called the new class "the new priesthood" in a book he wrote about the German New Left in 1974.
Really? I've been trying for a while to think of another term, but consistently fail.
Yeah. His basic idea was that the "transvaluation of all values" that the '60s New Left looked to enact under "cultural revolution" was a form of iconoclasm, and after the smashing of the idols would come a new religion of sorts. This would purport to centre liberation and social justice but would really be a mystified smoke-screen for a kind of spiritual reboot of the system, only now with the icon smashers in power. A familiar story in the history of religions, I guess.
I'm a bit late to the party here, but here goes.
Given your previous research, what do you think the intellectual (here perhaps 'Vanguard'??) class ought to do? Are you suggesting that if the intellectual class wants to do anything, they must foreground their interests plain and simple, rather than clothing it in the garb of the current neolib order? Much appreciated.
I'm not sure I'm in a position to advise the intellectual class on strategy, but yes. I do think a key part of legitimising the intellectuals' political project over time has been posing as representatives of (or "experts" on) a class, grouping, or multitude other than themselves. (And indeed they also have a similar approach to institutions and bureaucracies.) This does have a distorting effect on intellectual discourse and self-understanding.
So then what are these distortions? Are you thinking in terms of the disdain that so-called coastal elites have for rural and blue collar folk?
Ayn Rand presciently summed-up the "cultural revolution" (more religious cult) of the '60s New Left at that time in her publication entitled: "The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution."
We are now bearing, witnessing, and experiencing the overt and intentional destruction of virtue, value, and prosperity throughout The West in general, and the U.S.A. in particular. "By 2030, you'll own nothing and you’ll be happy." -- WEF
This is frightening, is my initial reaction. Partly because they doubtless know not what drives them in modern Wokeistan. This rarified stuff is more powerful than I ever appreciated.
To "diversity", "inclusion" "hate" and "the climate emergency" might be added "mental health" which will (in principle) allow a huge addition of credentialed workers who have a vast store of CDC readily available.
EDIT I missed "safety". Keeping people "safe" against unspecified risks. This is becoming dominant in UK with sometimes awful results
Another great piece but damn those bib books are expensive.
I picked up my copy of David Ashley's book (which to my mind is a totally underrated classic) cheap online, but for the others: library interloan!