13 Comments

As always, this is a wonderful article with a thoughtful analysis that makes sense. I love this sentence: "As a rule of thumb, whenever anyone in politics invokes a 'danger' to society, assume that the danger is to their own political standing." *That* should always be a person's first reaction.

Expand full comment

Fabulously well-written.

Expand full comment
May 11, 2022Liked by Leighton Woodhouse

Great analysis. Twitter is a distant issue for me. But I do hope for a break in the stranglehold on communication held by the Elite. What lies and selective news.

Thank You

Expand full comment
founding
Nov 24, 2022·edited Nov 24, 2022Liked by Leighton Woodhouse

I love your writing but I wish there were more evidence and details.

I don’t think your categorizations work. You’re conflating a whole series of policy arguments with corporate management. And PMC vs entrepreneurial billionaire isn’t a bounded category either.

For example: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/jack-dorsey-bu-center-for-antiracist-research-gift/

Regardless I’m a subscriber because it’s wonderfully written.

Expand full comment

Not sure you've properly accounted for "woke capital" in this equation. Via their control over elite universities, the PMC has seemingly consolidated control over the vast majority of Wall Street, and hence, Wall Street-funded corporations.

Expand full comment

I read this interesting book recently called "Revolutionary Apocalypse: Ideological Roots of Terrorism" by Luciano Pellicani that discussed some of the same issues as you in re the tensions between the money class and the ideas class (more or less):

"In Alfred von Martin’s sociological analysis of renaissance civilization we learn that, between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries, the economic and cultural changes produced in European society by the expansion of capitalism led to the emergence of two new classes: men of letters and merchants. Both felt they were superior to the “common folk” whom they despised and had no desire to frequent; both were very much opposed to the classes who held the power at the time: the aristocracy and high clergy. Although the two new classes shared the same aversions, they were hardly allies, because they had completely different values and capital. For intellectuals, knowledge and virtus—spiritual education—were the supreme value; for the merchants, wealth, because they considered that personally accumulated riches were the only criterion for judging people and things. This profound difference explains why the two “chosen” classes tended to despise each other and, worse still, why the intelligentsia “who believed they were endowed with a spiritual mission because they represented the elite of their class, insisted on the other class appointing it to act as its spiritual representative."

"Von Martin’s analysis is particularly useful in terms of understanding why, especially in the last two centuries, intellectuals have tended to support anti-capitalist movements. In their view, a capitalist society is structurally incapable of achieving the supreme values they claim to incarnate. In effect, in capitalist societies, material values prevail “over all other values, with the consequence that the economy leaves its mark on every field of society and culture.” The sensation of profound alienation and impotence experienced by intellectuals derives therefore from the incompatibility between the role of spiritual leadership they aspire to fulfill and the specific nature of the social order that revolves around values and forces that are completely foreign to them. In this material world, pervaded by material values, intellectuals feel like aliens, who are unable to leave a mark on society. Their natural vocation is to guide consciences, indicate goals, transform the public ethos. The fact that modern society is dominated by economic issues, is impervious to their messages, and refuses to recognize their role of spiritual leadership offends them deeply."

This tension seems to be one of the major fault lines in Western capitalist societies. But if history is any guide, the elite will eventually come to some power-sharing agreement, things will stabilize for a generation or two, and then we'll get to do it all over again.

Expand full comment

What an interesting and original analysis!

The hysteria surrounding a Twitter takeover in which censorship and cancellation of dissident views will no longer be ascendent is the clearest indication that the elite seek to expand a lot more than their economic and social capital. The elite seeks to control minds by being the gatekeeper of what information is allowed to be disseminated and who is allowed to speak. The fear and hysteria over Musk's commitment to open dialogue is a clear indicator that the elite is seeking the same miserable oligarchy that Putin has built, and the outcome will be the same or worse.

Expand full comment

LW is so on the money here. It seems to me that the leftish PMC is entirely consumed by a solipsistic tussle for class hegemony because it senses the passing of the Enlightenment. Just as people hoard provisions for the coming apocalypse, they hoard cultural capital for the coming of a new era that broadly rejects technocracy. Twitter, as their elite members club and state broadcaster, matters a great deal more to them than the rest of us. It’s where they accrue their survivalist provisions and Musk might make it a bit harder to do that.

Expand full comment
founding

Thanks for another thought provoking article. (Please consider adding a tip jar)

Of all the Elites with economic capital, what would your rough guess be of the % that align with the Musk/ Thiel camp (i.e those who do NOT hold the Cultural Capital of the PMC in high esteem)

My guess would be:

Elite Capital Individuals: 1%

Elite Capital in $$ Slightly higher?

Am I way off?

Expand full comment