A good essay, exploring one of the specific aspects of woke capitalism. However, although I don’t hold with the prescriptions of Marx, sometimes Marxist analysis can be a useful tool. Methinks capitalists began to listen to the prophecies of Nick Hanauer, most notably when he gave his somewhat famous TED Talk (which was at one point banned, but swiftly reinstated by popular demand) and quickly converted to the new religion of Wokedom:
In the video, he describes the likelihood that there would be increasingly dissatisfaction with the capital class- which seems somewhat prophetic now that we have seen populism rise in any number of countries, be it on the Right, as with Trump, or on the Left, with Progressive Populists. Political economist Mark Blythe has given some interesting talks on the subject of Global Trumpism (which he sees as a rebellion against the neoliberal corrupt corporate duopoly which had existed at the centre of power in most advanced economies).
He has also written one of the books on my reading list (there are so many)- Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, the main thesis of which is that austerity measures during economic crises are worse than useful because they shrink the denominator of country’s GDP by more than the effect on the numerator, leaving a higher debt to GDP ratio than would have existed without austerity (see Greece). For those critical of his viewpoint, I would argue that it should be the constant job of politicians to shrink the structural costs of government for either reallocation or tax savings, but that suddenly discovering the long-lost urge when your economy is on the ropes can be disastrous.
Anyway, the real problem with corporations is that can be quite flat hierarchies in which there is little in the way of career progression for the vast bulk of employees. Yes, there are specialists, but increasingly these days they are hired mercenaries and university educated in specialist fields. Little or no thought is given to vocational training for gifted workers (which psychometrics could ascertain quite easily and incredibly cheaply these days). Ironically, it is America which is leading the way in this respect, as in so many other issues. I say ironic, because it does seem odd that a country which prides itself upon being a classless society should be introducing what effectively amounts to a caste system.
You see, almost all the young professionals in the New Managerial Elite are children of the top 10%. Why wouldn’t they be, given that they have an IRL network from their parents background, telling exactly what types of activities and qualifications can pay in the long run? With the increasingly commodified nature of education, they knew exactly where to go to university to optimise their chances of landing a cushy job. Most went to summer camps arranged by the exclusive private schools they attended, to give them a leg up on the new successor ideology of wokedom and to find new ways to exclude lower down the socio-economic pecking order (unless they happen to have the right skin colour and views). Previously, they has relied upon designer clothes with no labels which only each other could recognise, with the poor gormless children of hardworking parents turning up at university proudly sporting Timberlands- only to find themselves shunned and excluded by the cool (Rich) kids.
Or as Douglas Murray puts it, in The Madness of Crowds:
“As it is in politics, so it is in private and public companies. Fast-tracked diversity may promote the people who were nearest to their destination already. And very often these are the most privileged people of any group – including their own.”
And it begins in the university, where kids now display their luxury beliefs, the modern more ephemeral and emotive equivalent of Dolce & Gabbana. The truth is right there in the stats- although I have long since forgotten the source, progressives are four times more likely to come from a parental background in the top 10% of the socio-economic spectrum. If we consider that it is possibly to hold quite laudable, if somewhat misinformed, economically progressive views- based in the genuine desire to help the poor- then the correlation between these new cultural progressives and genuine privilege are probably even higher.
And that’s the other rather nasty aspect of this ideology. Studies has shown that white privilege training doesn’t do anything to improve empathy towards poorer African Americans, whilst simultaneously significantly reducing empathy towards poorer whites:
But their attitudes toward poor blacks remained unchanged, according to a study.
Est. reading time: 3 minutes
The impact of diversity drives is that those who has closest in class and viewpoint to the existing cosmopolitan elite are accepted whilst the rope line to VIP section for Latinos and African Americans further down the economic spectrum is as vigorously policed as ever. Worse still, with opportunities all but eliminated for talented types who didn’t attend university and partisanship only exacerbating the disdain amongst cosmopolitans for the great unwashed, a lack of social mixing and media-driven loathing for socially conservative views (which African Americans have long been known to possess)- it is highly unlikely that a talented and hardworking Black man who didn’t attend university would even be considered for an important role.
The pandemic only made the degree of class segregation more glaring- with wait staff forced to mask whilst diners get to be people. But even before, there were distinctions. I’ve dined with all sorts over the years, and in my experience well-heeled cosmopolitans tend to be hypercritical of wait staff and lousy tippers, whilst the best tippers are invariably better paid Blue Collar workers. Ironic, given the latter generally work harder for their money.
Corporate Wokism is a substitute for the genuine sympathy we should feel for people less fortunate than ourselves. It supplants the natural sense of guilt we should feel for being born lucky and the sense of duty which should necessarily follow, and replaces it with a cosmetic concern which not only abandons the notion of meritorious social mobility, but structurally actually blocks it.
And as the regulatory capture of government by the corporations, squeezing small and medium size enterprises, this denies the very essence of the market which Adam Smith once espoused in his two books, the first of which is all too neglected. It’s through proximity that we preserve our manners, the social airs and graces which is reciprocal and humane. It’s very hard to treat a name like a number when you see their face every day.
Distance is what keeps the wages low and the workload full to brimming. It is only through several degrees of separation that we can practice the spreadsheet inhumanity of rationalisation and pension theft. At least when you work for a small business there are opportunities for development. As you learn, your pay grows. But with the Pin Factory economics practiced in most corporations, the tasks performed by most workers are so monosyllabic and uniform that every human is a part which is interchangeable. The question for corporations is that if people’s labour lacks value or worth, how can we develop them to make the most of their talents? It’s the one aspect of Bismarck’s Welfare Capitalism which hasn’t made it into the 21st century in many countries, and some might say by far the most important.
And, of course, it’s all one big chicken farm. They are training the next set of elites to run the farm, and keeping the masses fed with the equity scraps they throw from their table. They are teaching the young to not only tolerate them for Corporate Wokism, but to also love them for it. Whether or not the vast majority of the younger generation actually falls for this crap is very much beside the point- because as we’ve already seen, the opinions of the great unwashed don’t really matter. It’s what the privileged children of the newly minted corporate class see when they look in the mirror last thing at night that really matters- and they can console themselves with the fact that it should be government’s job to provide more for their workers- with those pesky Republicans are to blame for the humiliation these children of the privileged dole out to their workers on a daily basis.
“ Whether or not the vast majority of the younger generation actually falls for this crap is very much beside the point- because as we’ve already seen, the opinions of the great unwashed don’t really matter.”
I’d say that unfortunately a lot of them do. I’m 25 and went to a state school (public university) not an Ivy League, but I know a fair number of young people who do fall for the woke crap. It seems a little more rampant now than even when I was in school and it’s a little more prevalent among my sister’s friends (Georgetown alums and current students), although most of them are pretty reasonable and some of them are good friends of mine.
I also know a fair number of young people from the rural hinterlands where I grew up. The woke stuff is a lot less real there but it’s still prevalent. Worked in DOD and I saw there, too.
I think what you're highlighting here is the latest manifestation of the elite. The point about being an elite is that entry is restricted to a certain few who fit the category. Thus the fact that it's woke capitalism is actually irrelevant and it will be replaced by a new manifestation further down the road as elites adapt and change and are replaced.
The Trumpist reaction is just an attempt by the excluded to break into the elite environment. If they are successful then they will form the elite and have their own set of excludatory rules.
Predicting people suffer greed, envy and jealousy is hardly an insight.
Any failures of free market capitalism will resolve themselves. Either businesses do well according to their customers who freely choose to trade with them, or they fail. Either they consume limited capital or they become starved of it so others can use it. Only government can prop up bad businesses to survive longer (too big to fail/TARP/CARES/ACA, special tax privileges, tariffs, regulations and licensing to reduce competition) because it's based on force by a special small group in the ruling class.
We haven't had absolute TFM since the stone age. Weights and measures and currency have been regulated since Sargon. But I take your point. There was a time when Adam Smith's Invisible Hand actually worked and Market Forces really did solve most (tho never all) problems. I'm a huge fan of genuine capitalism.
> a strong economy does create inequality because people are unequal
Quite right. Equity is neither possible nor desirable. However inequality can become too extreme as well, and it has.
> and then enact laws spending other people's money
From the time of the late Victorians up to about the 70's governments were often frugal and efficient in spending other people's money. No need to list the exceptions. The Victorians were perhaps the most zealous TFMers the world ever saw, but even they had the good sense to realize that London's sewer problems were not going to be solved by TFM, it rather took government action. So they hired one of the great unsung heroes of engineering, Joseph B. who's work, rather than being about maximizing shareholder value, was about providing sanitation for all. His system still functions.
> and most were once the new competitors to those people previously cried were too powerful
Sure. The problem is that the lean and mean will become the fat and lazy if we let them. The people who preach competition and innovation will actually suppress those things once they reach the top. My doctrine is to keep competition and innovation going by doing what Teddy R. did, namely suppressing monopolies or demi-monopolies. You mentioned that the price of kerosene went down during the Standard Oil monopoly; I'd reply that it would have gone down much faster if the monopoly had been broken up sooner.
All disagreements aside, it’s a great word when you want to keep it clean but clearly derisive. More or less interchangeable with ‘Maroon’.
“ Whether or not the vast majority of the younger generation actually falls for this crap is very much beside the point- because as we’ve already seen, the opinions of the great unwashed don’t really matter.”
I’d say that unfortunately a lot of them do. I’m 25 and went to a state school (public university) not an Ivy League, but I know a fair number of young people who do fall for the woke crap. It seems a little more rampant now than even when I was in school and it’s a little more prevalent among my sister’s friends (Georgetown alums and current students), although most of them are pretty reasonable and some of them are good friends of mine.
I also know a fair number of young people from the rural hinterlands where I grew up. The woke stuff is a lot less real there but it’s still prevalent. Worked in DOD and I saw there, too.
I think what you're highlighting here is the latest manifestation of the elite. The point about being an elite is that entry is restricted to a certain few who fit the category. Thus the fact that it's woke capitalism is actually irrelevant and it will be replaced by a new manifestation further down the road as elites adapt and change and are replaced.
The Trumpist reaction is just an attempt by the excluded to break into the elite environment. If they are successful then they will form the elite and have their own set of excludatory rules.
Predicting people suffer greed, envy and jealousy is hardly an insight.
Any failures of free market capitalism will resolve themselves. Either businesses do well according to their customers who freely choose to trade with them, or they fail. Either they consume limited capital or they become starved of it so others can use it. Only government can prop up bad businesses to survive longer (too big to fail/TARP/CARES/ACA, special tax privileges, tariffs, regulations and licensing to reduce competition) because it's based on force by a special small group in the ruling class.
DOK, you there?
> The US did TFM for 100 years.
We haven't had absolute TFM since the stone age. Weights and measures and currency have been regulated since Sargon. But I take your point. There was a time when Adam Smith's Invisible Hand actually worked and Market Forces really did solve most (tho never all) problems. I'm a huge fan of genuine capitalism.
> a strong economy does create inequality because people are unequal
Quite right. Equity is neither possible nor desirable. However inequality can become too extreme as well, and it has.
> and then enact laws spending other people's money
From the time of the late Victorians up to about the 70's governments were often frugal and efficient in spending other people's money. No need to list the exceptions. The Victorians were perhaps the most zealous TFMers the world ever saw, but even they had the good sense to realize that London's sewer problems were not going to be solved by TFM, it rather took government action. So they hired one of the great unsung heroes of engineering, Joseph B. who's work, rather than being about maximizing shareholder value, was about providing sanitation for all. His system still functions.
> and most were once the new competitors to those people previously cried were too powerful
Sure. The problem is that the lean and mean will become the fat and lazy if we let them. The people who preach competition and innovation will actually suppress those things once they reach the top. My doctrine is to keep competition and innovation going by doing what Teddy R. did, namely suppressing monopolies or demi-monopolies. You mentioned that the price of kerosene went down during the Standard Oil monopoly; I'd reply that it would have gone down much faster if the monopoly had been broken up sooner.