In this thread, I employed some concepts from Banfield’s “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society” to explore why some of James Burnham’s predictions in “The Managerial Revolution” didn’t come to fruition.
In this thread I’ll flesh out this framework a bit.
In this thread I’ll flesh out this framework a bit.
To recap: my contention is that our society can more accurately be said to be governed according to a system of “amoral institutionalism” (or “amoral administrivism” per @noxraptus) than one of “managerialism” (even if that term is only loosely applied.)
“Amoral institutionalism” operates in a fashion broadly analogous to organised crime: patronage networks appropriate capital in an atmosphere of widespread mistrust and distribute spoils to insiders.
Amoral institution differs from ethnic organised crime networks insofar as it is centred on membership or affiliation with specific “institutions” rather than membership of a given family or clan.
“Institution” is a deliberately broad term: it must encompass government departments and agencies, nonprofits, think tanks, “advocacy groups”, educational institutions, and private companies partly or wholly co-opted by state organs (which we can collectively call the “blob”.)
With that out of the way we can make some descriptive/predictive statements about the way things will operate in this system.
Power in our society is held by multiple, partially overlapping patronage networks.
These networks determine the distribution of capital and “status.”
These networks determine the distribution of capital and “status.”
These networks will centre on and operate through the control of established institutions, as broadly defined above.
The heads of such networks (analogous to mob bosses or godfathers) are those with ultimate control over these institutions.
The heads of such networks (analogous to mob bosses or godfathers) are those with ultimate control over these institutions.
Membership and advancement within these structures will be entirely dependent on:
1. Pre-existing insider status or active sponsorship by a more senior member.
2. Commitment to institutional goals as defined by network leaders.
1. Pre-existing insider status or active sponsorship by a more senior member.
2. Commitment to institutional goals as defined by network leaders.
Membership of or affiliation with an institution and its patronage network will guarantee a degree of privilege and protection, according to the relative power of a given network, the relative importance of a specific institution to its aims, and the seniority of the member.
Institutions will respond to outsider attacks on their insiders by closing rank to protect them insofar as is possible.
Most individual “members” of these networks will never be particularly close to the individuals within them that actually control them, even though they may be permitted to act as its deputies.
This much larger and more “junior” layer will be afforded only limited protections that will be withdrawn when expediency calls for it (such as if their actions would potentially harm their institution or encroach on the members/“turf” of another.)
Outsiders to institutions will generally be treated with moral indifference and ignored, exploited, or attacked/undermined freely insofar as it benefits the institution and its backers to do so.
I think these basic principles can neatly explain many discrete features of the eternal present that have been described elsewhere.
“Anarcho-tyranny” for instance is simply one’s experience of an amorally institutionalist society without the protection of a patronage network.
The “janissary” social class I’ve written about elsewhere represents the largest, lowest, and most loosely attached rank of institutional mobsters, diligently doing the dirty work of their capos and higher masters in the hopes they’ll someday earn a racket of their own.
It also provides a more satisfactory (and I believe accurate) explanation of the “direction of travel”. Since not all institutions will have the same interests at all times, the lockstep movement of many or all institutions implies a very high degree of coordination.
At the lower levels, this coordination can be largely self-governing as “clients” of various degrees of seniority manoeuvre to anticipate their patrons’ wishes and goals. But at the highest levels, the most senior patrons set the tone.
Who these patrons are is another question altogether, but we can anticipate there aren’t many of them. They probably only amount to a few thousand people in each country. We can also presume, given the obvious coordination between institutions, that they are highly homogenous.
In fact, I believe this kind of elite homogeneity (in cultural/ideological terms at least) is likely a necessary prerequisite to the kind of system I’m describing. A highly centralised and homogenous ruling elite will be subject to almost no accountability.
They will have almost no reason to discourage abuses of power - either by themselves or their subordinates - and when these abuses further their interests, will even consider them to be both necessary and good.
What’s interesting about this situation is that it’s both new, and not new. As Pareto would tell you, there has been a tiny “power elite” in every society in human history.
However what may be new about the modern west is that our power elite is too highly consolidated, it’s members to ideologically similar, for any kind of meaningful intra-elite conflict to occur barring some almighty upset to the status quo.
But it is precisely this kind of conflict which is necessary to preserve even a semblance of accountability in the ruling classes towards the people they rule, and which incentivises their behaviour towards something other than self-congratulatory self-immolation.
Loading suggestions...