Welcome back to my monthly longform newsletter. This is always free, but you can get access to additional exclusive content, podcast and interview transcripts, commenting privileges, and access to the
Respectfully, this is a misreading of Yarvin. Yarvin does not advocate for managerialism. He simply acknowledges that it currently rules. He is not offering a different type of managerialism. Quite the contrary. He is a monarchist. Only a properly empowered monarch can defeat the decentralized, oligarchic elite. That said, he’s not a populist. I admit his hobbit/elf essay was his worst, but this newsletter doesn’t accurately reflect his ideas. Much love and respect for your excellent work, but this missed the mark.
I don't agree with that. Yarvin has taken to calling himself a monarchist (which is a safe thing to be as it makes people think he's a retro-trad Catholic legitimist or something) as he's rebooted himself into a public figure under his real name. If you go back and read Unqualified Reservations, my recollection is that his original idea was to transform government into a publicly traded sovereign corporation, with the citizens as the initial shareholders with right of exit. This is an extremely managerial conception of the state.
I think he would argue that any functional institution is a monarchy. A good restaurant, a good movie, Steve Jobs-era Apple. (America (he argues) had three great monarchs: Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.) A monarch has supreme power, but is still accountable.
Most poorly run institutions are run by extractive elites who are decentralized and unaccountable (oligarchies/elves) or incompetent and dangerous populists (democracies/hobbits). I'm not sure a monarchy is workable today. (Give me the good old American republic!) But these are interesting ideas nonetheless.
Aug 15, 2022·edited Aug 15, 2022Liked by Aaron M. Renn
Your coda is an echo from “Origins Of Totalitarianism,” about the vulnerability of the atomized individual. That book is a tome, but Part III is where the meat of her argument is. The more I read of it, the spookier parallels I see to today. We are sitting ducks for a charismatic totalitarian leader.
Reminds me of some of the themes from "No Place For Truth" (David Wells). Powerful.
Respectfully, this is a misreading of Yarvin. Yarvin does not advocate for managerialism. He simply acknowledges that it currently rules. He is not offering a different type of managerialism. Quite the contrary. He is a monarchist. Only a properly empowered monarch can defeat the decentralized, oligarchic elite. That said, he’s not a populist. I admit his hobbit/elf essay was his worst, but this newsletter doesn’t accurately reflect his ideas. Much love and respect for your excellent work, but this missed the mark.
I will raise the matter with Mabry in our interview, however!
I don't agree with that. Yarvin has taken to calling himself a monarchist (which is a safe thing to be as it makes people think he's a retro-trad Catholic legitimist or something) as he's rebooted himself into a public figure under his real name. If you go back and read Unqualified Reservations, my recollection is that his original idea was to transform government into a publicly traded sovereign corporation, with the citizens as the initial shareholders with right of exit. This is an extremely managerial conception of the state.
I think he would argue that any functional institution is a monarchy. A good restaurant, a good movie, Steve Jobs-era Apple. (America (he argues) had three great monarchs: Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.) A monarch has supreme power, but is still accountable.
Most poorly run institutions are run by extractive elites who are decentralized and unaccountable (oligarchies/elves) or incompetent and dangerous populists (democracies/hobbits). I'm not sure a monarchy is workable today. (Give me the good old American republic!) But these are interesting ideas nonetheless.
Your coda is an echo from “Origins Of Totalitarianism,” about the vulnerability of the atomized individual. That book is a tome, but Part III is where the meat of her argument is. The more I read of it, the spookier parallels I see to today. We are sitting ducks for a charismatic totalitarian leader.
I thought the C. Wright Mills quote was interesting because he rejected Burnham's managerialism thesis.