I’m really enjoying this series of essays, but this most recent installment seems to have left the issue of identity by the wayside (despite the title).
I was anticipating you were going to connect PMC ideology to the rise of identity politics, and its promotion by the Democratic party—the party of the PMC—by the foundation world, in university seminar rooms and campus politics, and by corporate human resource departments staffed by and in charge of managing the managers themselves on behalf of the bourgeoisie. Or is this all yet to come, in the next installement perhaps?
Identity definitely faded into the background on this one, but it's there. Bottom line, I think the current PMC ideology, such as it is, makes it very difficult for young PMC aspirants to form a stable and resilient identity.
Identity politics is definitely on the agenda, but next post will probably be a review of Peter Turchin's book on overproduction of elites, which comes at some of the same questions from a different angle.
What I'm trying to figure out for the identity politics post is how to reconcile the meritocracy aspect of PMC ideology with the DEI quota aspect. I'm not quite there yet.
I came across your recent essay via NC – it is very interesting
I pick only one nit when you quote B Ehenreich in apparent approval
‘’is in a sense a derivative class; its existence presupposes: (1) that the social surplus has developed to a point sufficient to sustain the PMC in addition to the bourgeoisie, for the PMC is essentially nonproductive; and (2) that the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has developed to the point that a class specializing in the reproduction of capitalist class relationships becomes a necessity to the capitalist class. That is, the maintenance of order can no longer be left to episodic police violence.””
There is no need to add an extra class to ascribe a role to the PMC – they are the lower ranks of the governing class – it was always, since the very beginning, necessary for the dominant capitalist class to employ a governing class to man and to maintain the functions and stability of the state
The reproduction of class relations is a function of the structure of capitalism itself, but it does need as it were the ground cleared and well kept, to emphasise and protect the distinction between public and private, and to control the working class, by the use of ‘the law’, ideology, media, education, as well as army and police, some would add ind-ag and ill health
So the failure of the PMC seen as a class, which you list, may be ascribed to the fact that they are not a class, that they perform their role within the grounds and under the mantle of the dominant capital class, and have no merit need nor means to invent a class, or any particular demarcation from the governing class, this is merely, in common parlance, ‘the Outer Party’
As for the ‘failure of the PMC’ to reproduce itself – I take your point about the particular ideological form given to their function failing, perhaps, to animate the next generation – but their ideology is in essential, is merely a cap or a mask, and easily may be replaced
However in the essential sense of physical reproduction this failure to reproduce is a function of capitalism – Philip Pilkington and others have written about this – although one might argue that current PMCaste ideology and practice (trans etc) makes a virtue out of a vice, I mean necessity
I do not have strong views on how many classes there can be. I am discovering as I write these posts that I am more of a Marxist than I thought, but I still consider traditional Marxist analysis to be only one possibility, albeit with a rich history to consider.
I do think the distinct interests of the PMC are worth considering, even if the PMC don't currently do a good job of analyzing or protecting their own class interests.
The point about classes is there are only two of them, those that have agency deriving from their essential economic importance to capitalist production, that capitalist production requires two classes only, labour and capital, antagonistic and opposed to eachother in constant class war
– then there are the rest, the adjuncts, in the 19th C the economies of western Europe supported a relatively strong and relatively independent aristocracy, a class adjunct because of this relative economic autonomy, but still, in terms of the overall economy, and in terms of the capitalist state system and structure, subordinate to the dominant capitalist class (the bourgeoisie)
-there are (or were) also the famous in betweeners, la ‘petty bourgeoise’
One could clean this up by rendering both irrelevant today, whereas the increased numbers in the governing class (administration, law,education, police, press, professions) of which the PMC may be said to be a large constituent, has impressed the Ehrenreichs and others to grant them class status (partly as a consequence of their overtly ideological role, they talk a lot, and partly because the Ehrenreichs belong to this ‘class’)
However there has long existed such a managerial/administrative ‘class’ in capitalist society, as well as professionals of the Press, law, police and so on – there were previously relatively few calls for these to be recognised as having separate and sufficient mass status and distinction to form a class, rather than to be considered as appendages and servants of the dominant capitalist class
In reality, although the PR presents otherwise, this ‘class’ is all function and no agency, is dependent on the structures of the capitalist state – the so called ideological twerks so important to the PMC are irrelevant insofar as their role (the role of their ideological inventions) is merely to re inforce the stable exercise of dominant capitalism, while re arranging the chairs somewhat – the fuss made about identity is merely divide and rule
No other ‘classes’ can be invented, it serves no use to do so, to do so is a distraction from clear vision of capitalism and oppression – all the ‘middle classes’ are merely issues of the structure of capitalist society and serve the dominant class
The various lawyers etc ‘caste’ has no distinct interests except to claim superficial status as intellectual labourers to distinguish themselves from the working class labourers they would seek to govern/direct, the better to ingratiate themselves with the dominant class
Not to belabour the point – both sections of the working class are grunts, the factory labourers have retained, in the US, notions of class consciousness, the PMC have fooled themselves, or rather have been fooled by the apparent status granted them by their employers, into supposing superiority – the dream factory
Nothing more needs to be said about ‘identity’ other than it is literature as farce, a fairy tale to obscure or to divert from the oppressive reality of bare existence under capitalism, stripped of the old protections of tradition custom and nature, and deprived of the only unities which will allow resistance to capitalism itself, and to the class of capitalists
Possibly the classic Marxist vision of the destruction of capitalism via victory of the proletariat is less viable than the more recent analysis concerning falling birth rates
If, other than Marxism, you know of any other convincing universal explanation and overview for (current western economies) structure and system, do let me know – in general what is found is a sentimental mishmash of atomistic ideas and psychologies thrown over some bare bones left over from Marxism
To take your final sentence about PMC not doing a good job analysing etc – this is because they can not analyse or protect, they are dependent on the dominant for protection and purpose: to analyse with any autonomy, objectivity or conviction their role and status would reveal their impotence, divisions into competitive micro groups, linked only by common servitude, and common conduit for the oppression of the working class
I’m really enjoying this series of essays, but this most recent installment seems to have left the issue of identity by the wayside (despite the title).
I was anticipating you were going to connect PMC ideology to the rise of identity politics, and its promotion by the Democratic party—the party of the PMC—by the foundation world, in university seminar rooms and campus politics, and by corporate human resource departments staffed by and in charge of managing the managers themselves on behalf of the bourgeoisie. Or is this all yet to come, in the next installement perhaps?
Identity definitely faded into the background on this one, but it's there. Bottom line, I think the current PMC ideology, such as it is, makes it very difficult for young PMC aspirants to form a stable and resilient identity.
Identity politics is definitely on the agenda, but next post will probably be a review of Peter Turchin's book on overproduction of elites, which comes at some of the same questions from a different angle.
What I'm trying to figure out for the identity politics post is how to reconcile the meritocracy aspect of PMC ideology with the DEI quota aspect. I'm not quite there yet.
I came across your recent essay via NC – it is very interesting
I pick only one nit when you quote B Ehenreich in apparent approval
‘’is in a sense a derivative class; its existence presupposes: (1) that the social surplus has developed to a point sufficient to sustain the PMC in addition to the bourgeoisie, for the PMC is essentially nonproductive; and (2) that the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has developed to the point that a class specializing in the reproduction of capitalist class relationships becomes a necessity to the capitalist class. That is, the maintenance of order can no longer be left to episodic police violence.””
There is no need to add an extra class to ascribe a role to the PMC – they are the lower ranks of the governing class – it was always, since the very beginning, necessary for the dominant capitalist class to employ a governing class to man and to maintain the functions and stability of the state
The reproduction of class relations is a function of the structure of capitalism itself, but it does need as it were the ground cleared and well kept, to emphasise and protect the distinction between public and private, and to control the working class, by the use of ‘the law’, ideology, media, education, as well as army and police, some would add ind-ag and ill health
So the failure of the PMC seen as a class, which you list, may be ascribed to the fact that they are not a class, that they perform their role within the grounds and under the mantle of the dominant capital class, and have no merit need nor means to invent a class, or any particular demarcation from the governing class, this is merely, in common parlance, ‘the Outer Party’
As for the ‘failure of the PMC’ to reproduce itself – I take your point about the particular ideological form given to their function failing, perhaps, to animate the next generation – but their ideology is in essential, is merely a cap or a mask, and easily may be replaced
However in the essential sense of physical reproduction this failure to reproduce is a function of capitalism – Philip Pilkington and others have written about this – although one might argue that current PMCaste ideology and practice (trans etc) makes a virtue out of a vice, I mean necessity
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/11/capitalisms-overlooked-contradiction-wealth-and-demographic-decline/
I do not have strong views on how many classes there can be. I am discovering as I write these posts that I am more of a Marxist than I thought, but I still consider traditional Marxist analysis to be only one possibility, albeit with a rich history to consider.
I do think the distinct interests of the PMC are worth considering, even if the PMC don't currently do a good job of analyzing or protecting their own class interests.
The point about classes is there are only two of them, those that have agency deriving from their essential economic importance to capitalist production, that capitalist production requires two classes only, labour and capital, antagonistic and opposed to eachother in constant class war
– then there are the rest, the adjuncts, in the 19th C the economies of western Europe supported a relatively strong and relatively independent aristocracy, a class adjunct because of this relative economic autonomy, but still, in terms of the overall economy, and in terms of the capitalist state system and structure, subordinate to the dominant capitalist class (the bourgeoisie)
-there are (or were) also the famous in betweeners, la ‘petty bourgeoise’
One could clean this up by rendering both irrelevant today, whereas the increased numbers in the governing class (administration, law,education, police, press, professions) of which the PMC may be said to be a large constituent, has impressed the Ehrenreichs and others to grant them class status (partly as a consequence of their overtly ideological role, they talk a lot, and partly because the Ehrenreichs belong to this ‘class’)
However there has long existed such a managerial/administrative ‘class’ in capitalist society, as well as professionals of the Press, law, police and so on – there were previously relatively few calls for these to be recognised as having separate and sufficient mass status and distinction to form a class, rather than to be considered as appendages and servants of the dominant capitalist class
In reality, although the PR presents otherwise, this ‘class’ is all function and no agency, is dependent on the structures of the capitalist state – the so called ideological twerks so important to the PMC are irrelevant insofar as their role (the role of their ideological inventions) is merely to re inforce the stable exercise of dominant capitalism, while re arranging the chairs somewhat – the fuss made about identity is merely divide and rule
No other ‘classes’ can be invented, it serves no use to do so, to do so is a distraction from clear vision of capitalism and oppression – all the ‘middle classes’ are merely issues of the structure of capitalist society and serve the dominant class
The various lawyers etc ‘caste’ has no distinct interests except to claim superficial status as intellectual labourers to distinguish themselves from the working class labourers they would seek to govern/direct, the better to ingratiate themselves with the dominant class
Not to belabour the point – both sections of the working class are grunts, the factory labourers have retained, in the US, notions of class consciousness, the PMC have fooled themselves, or rather have been fooled by the apparent status granted them by their employers, into supposing superiority – the dream factory
Nothing more needs to be said about ‘identity’ other than it is literature as farce, a fairy tale to obscure or to divert from the oppressive reality of bare existence under capitalism, stripped of the old protections of tradition custom and nature, and deprived of the only unities which will allow resistance to capitalism itself, and to the class of capitalists
Possibly the classic Marxist vision of the destruction of capitalism via victory of the proletariat is less viable than the more recent analysis concerning falling birth rates
If, other than Marxism, you know of any other convincing universal explanation and overview for (current western economies) structure and system, do let me know – in general what is found is a sentimental mishmash of atomistic ideas and psychologies thrown over some bare bones left over from Marxism
To take your final sentence about PMC not doing a good job analysing etc – this is because they can not analyse or protect, they are dependent on the dominant for protection and purpose: to analyse with any autonomy, objectivity or conviction their role and status would reveal their impotence, divisions into competitive micro groups, linked only by common servitude, and common conduit for the oppression of the working class