All the little piggies went to market - Part 1

THEN ... the rules changed out of all recognition. How and why?

Apr 26, 2023

Quite early on, I embraced capitalism. It made sense to me. The idea of getting a zillion entrepreneurs to dream up a zillion ideas and test them in an open marketplace seemed a wonderful way to help us all progress. It had the supreme advantage of distributing the challenges of both creation and risk across the maximum possible number of brains.

Inevitably, some - perhaps the majority - of those zillion products and services would come to naught, leaving the entrepreneurs to pick themselves up, dust themselves down and, if they had the energy, start all over again. But many would succeed and, sure, a few of those whose ideas took off would make it big, becoming billionaires or - coming soon, I’m sure - trillionaires. That’s not a problem as far as I’m concerned. Good luck to ‘em, I say. We’re not dealing with a fixed-size pie. If someone wins big it does not mean that others lose. So, grow the pie!

The free-market capitalist model as we have known it for the past two hundred or so years is a product of the Enlightenment and its values - Reason, Freedom, Tolerance. Its success was so great that, for many, it seemed a no-brainer to apply it to more and more elements not just of Business but also of Society. By the 1990s, Christopher Lasch was able to write:

Early admirers of the market - Adam Smith, for example - believed that selfishness was a virtue only if it was confined to the realm of exchange. They did not advocate or even envision conditions in which every phase of life would be organized according to principles of the market. Now that private life has been largely absorbed by the market, however, a new school of economic thought offers what amounts to ‘a new moral vision’: a society wholly dominated by the market, in which economic relations are ‘no longer softened by ties of trust and solidarity’.1

Hmm, had ‘the market’ become a victim of its own success?

Masses, Elites and New Elites

Lasch’s book from which the above quote is taken is titled The Revolt of the Elites, so named to contrast with a 1930 volume, The Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset. Gasset’s book was a blast against the then new ‘mass-man’, in his view a member of an emergent, somewhat self-satisfied but rather ignorant middle class. It’s all part of a ‘noble life’ versus ‘common life’ tug of war that has gone on in different forms for a very, very long time.

Up until the Enlightenment (late 17th century to early 19th century) there was no question at all about it: the noble class ruled and, however fate had decreed it, the position you were born into, whether noble or peasant, was an immutable fact. However, to balance things out a little, the benefits of nobility were supposed to come with responsibilities. It was termed noblesse oblige, the obligation on those of high rank or birth to behave honorably, generously and responsibly towards those less fortunate than themselves.

So, perhaps it was inevitable that, after God knows how long a period of time when the ‘noble life’ vs. ‘common life’ dynamic ruled, when a middle class bubbled up, it was going to lead to some confusion. And a substantial and effective middle class did emerge: as the years of the Enlightenment went on, the ‘nobodys’ were on the march. By the end of the nineteenth century it was so much a fact of life that it could be benignly satirized. And the satire was glorious: The Diary of a Nobody2 was and is a masterpiece:

Why should I not publish my diary? I have often seen reminiscences of people I have never heard of, and I fail to see - because I do not happen to be a ‘Somebody’ - why my diary should not be interesting. My only regret is that I did not commence it when I was a youth.
Charles Pooter

Then, as late as 1902 the curtain went up at London’s Duke of York Theatre on a new play, The Admirable Crichton3 by J.M. Barrie (of Peter Pan fame). It’s a smart comedy in which the aristocrat, Lord Loam, believes that the class divisions in society are artificial but his butler, the eponymous Crichton, believes that those divisions are the right and proper way to delineate a civilized society.

In Act 1, the monthly gathering where everyone in Lord Loam’s household is treated as equals is about to take place. Crichton hates it but must do his job. As he says to Lord Loam:

CRICHTON (humbly): I can’t help being a Conservative, my lord.
LORD LOAM. Be a man, Crichton. You are the same flesh and blood as myself.
CRICHTON (rubbing his hands in pain): Oh, my lord.
LORD LOAM (sharply): Show them in, and, by the way, they were not all here last time.
CRICHTON: All, my lord, except the merest trifles.
LORD LOAM: It must be every one. (Threateningly.) And remember this, Crichton - for the time being you are my equal. (Firmly.) I shall soon show you whether you are not my equal. Do as you are told.

Thus, a neat inversion is used to explore the ‘noble life’ versus ‘common life’ issue in a good-humoured, sometimes poignant, manner.

We do well to remember that the enfranchisement of all adults is a recent development in our societies. In Britain men and women were granted equal voting rights only in 1928 - that’s less than a hundred years ago. So, it is important not to take universal suffrage for granted and, as has now become clear, it’s also vital to keep a sharp eye on any activities that undermine or even invalidate the value of individual votes.

This last point is well made in an excellent new book, Values, Voice and Virtue4 that dissects the current version of the ‘noble life’ versus ‘common life’ model, whereby the Masses are now having to confront a relatively small but powerful New Elite. There’s also excellent commentary and discussion about this phenomenon here on Substack by one of my writing heroes, Ed West:

Wrong Side of History

The eternal rebels

Almost fifty years ago Daniel Bell wrote in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism of the great changes that had occurred since the 1960s, a period he wondered might be a sort of new reformation. Although the decade had ended with Richard Nixon’s election victory, there had really only been one winner in the great conflict…

2 years ago · 126 likes · 43 comments · Ed West

Have you woken up to what’s going on now in Business?

My core subject, as ever, is Business, with a particular focus on any changes in the dynamics between suppliers and their customers. So, what are we to make of the present situation? How does the ‘noble life’ versus ‘common life’ tug of war relate to Business?

I’m going to suggest that the 21st century phenomenon, the Masses versus the New Elite, tracks closely with what is now termed Wokeness, and that it mimics a pre-Enlightenment model.

In the past few decades there has been a precocious assault on the hugely successful post-Enlightenment model where Business functioned in synergistic harmony with Politics and Society. It has all been in order to wrest power for a new aristocracy, a New Elite …

The people who really run Britain and many other western democracies today, who wield enormous power, influence and control over the country and its institutions, come not from the old aristocracy or the old middle class but from a new middle-class graduate elite. … [featuring] above all, their strongly liberal cosmopolitan or radically progressive values.5

Consequently, we can argue, the three-class model that emerged to power greater human flourishing, and which provided bottom-up balance to top-down power, has been supplanted by a two-class version that is far more reminiscent of the old ‘noble life’ versus ‘common life’ model, but with some important differences:

It leverages a social justice rationale, but is ultimately not driven by social justice.
It is entirely ‘top-down’ controlled and commanded.
It lacks any of the virtues of the original ‘noble life’ versus ‘common life’ model. Which is to say, there is no equivalent of noblesse oblige but rather a complete disdain for selected ‘common life’ groups.

How, you might quite reasonably ask, have the New Elite pulled off this remarkable feat?

Thank you for reading Aargh! (Age-activated rage, grumpiness and humour) by David Pinder.. This post is public so feel free to share it.

The transformation three-step

Here, I’m just going to set out the key factors as I see them. Future posts will expand on these points.

I see the current massive changes as a shift towards an old ‘us versus them’ model. In this instance, it’s the New Elite (who seem to represent about 25 per cent of the British population6 and probably a similar percentage of the populations of other western countries) versus the rest.

A key method is via the promotion of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and the benevolent-sounding Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) strategic approach. All done in the name of Fairness, Unity, Compassion and Kindness.

Proponents of the DEI and ESG formulae assert that, “We’re all human, aren’t we? We’re all the same. But, up until now, particular groups of people have dominated the others, benefiting disproportionately and unfairly, and harming the entire ecosystem in the process. It is essential, therefore, to rewrite the rules, in the first instance actively giving preference to those who were, until now, the underdogs. It’s a just outcome - a brand new start to a bright new day in a shiny new world.”

Axiomatically, this means adopting a form of Orwellian Newspeak so that when, for example, referring to DEI, the words are reframed along the following lines:

DIVERSITY means NOT including ‘the wrong people’.
EQUITY means NOT giving equality of outcome to ‘the wrong people’. Indeed, rather than raising all people up, it means keeping selected groups down.
INCLUSION means EXCLUDING ‘the wrong people’.

To drive this proposition forward the proponents needed to find a way to undermine the status quo, which, given the phenomenal success of the free-market capitalist system, should have been extremely hard to do. However, the New Elite found not one but three factors that together constitute a potential wrecking ball. Three factors that made it plausible for the New Elite to look out upon the business world and, with a sucking of teeth, say, “No, mate, it’s buggered. There’s only one way out of this mess: start over with something completely different. And don’t you dare argue because there’s an existential threat and we’re out to save the world.” It’s all very Lord Loam!

What are the three factors?

As noted in an earlier post, a largely unchallenged proposition has emerged that, if decision making and business practice are governed by Compassion and Kindness, everything else will fall into place. Who could argue with the idea that Fairness, Unity, Compassion and Kindness are really quite nice to have in Business?
Then there’s a clever twist. The Fairness, Unity, Compassion and Kindness goal is then deployed to justify terminating a central tenet of Enlightenment values - Meritocracy. So, the ‘zillion brains’ benefit with which I started this post is declared verboten. The golden key to our success that, over the past 200 years, opened up the field for everyone who chose to participate - “You have an idea to make life better? Great. Feel free. Go ahead.” - is now damned, even including the claim that Meritocracy is, of all things, racist.7
Then comes the Big One, the factor that binds everything together and, so to speak, justifies ‘wartime conditions’. It is all framed within a Doomsday narrative. Free-market capitalism in its post-Enlightenment form, as practiced by the West, within liberal, democratic nation-states, so the story goes, has brought us to just 90 seconds to midnight on the Doomsday Clock. Other factors are, of course, involved but in a summary of its March 2023 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), describes the situation as critical, “a final warning to humanity”, and asserts that …

… humans are responsible for all global heating over the past 200 years leading to a current temperature rise of 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels, which has led to more frequent and hazardous weather events that have caused increasing destruction to people and the planet. The report reminds us that every increment of warming will come with more extreme weather events.
The report outlines that the 1.5°C limit is still achievable and outlines the critical action required across sectors and by everyone at all levels. The report focuses on the critical need for action that considers climate justice and focuses on climate resilient development. It outlines that by sharing best practices, technology, effective policy measures, and mobilising sufficient finance, any community can decrease or prevent the usage of carbon-intensive consumption methods. The biggest gains in well-being can be achieved by prioritizing climate risk reduction for low-income and marginalized communities.

The IPCC’s AR6 Synthesis Report Summary picks up on this with a section on Equity and Inclusion, including …

Prioritizing equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes can enable adaptation and ambitious mitigation actions and climate resilient development.

Thus, the Doomsday narrative (3) is linked directly to Fairness, Unity, Compassion and Kindness (1) which is linked directly to the eradication of Meritocracy (2).

All of this constitutes a highly effective trap to prevent dialogue. One is left solely with, “Agree or be damned!” Take the use of Equity (meaning equality of outcome) for example. Equity makes sense within the specific goal of saving the human race: it would be downright immoral to say “Oh, don’t worry about that group over there. They’re expendable.” But in the normal course of events the fact that people have different aptitudes and dreams and motivations is a healthy and productive reality. It is, of course, the root of Meritocracy.

So, a complete re-invention of Business is presented as the only humane solution to the problems and divisions that it (Business) has, itself, created. And to make the whole issue more sticky, it is wrapped up in a huge cloud of fear. In a BBC News interview, for example, Extinction Rebellion’s former leader, Roger Hallam, declared8:

I am talking about the slaughter, death and starvation of 6 billion people this century - that’s what the science predicts.

The science predicts no such thing but one can hardly blame people for feeling scared when this sort of talk is bandied about. None of this is to say that there are not legitimate concerns about climate issues, but pitching everything in such an exaggerated key helps no-one … except, perhaps, those driven by limitless greed and those who wish to undermine the West.

NEXT TIME - more detail about this whole proposition.

Aargh! by David Pinder

Discussion about this post