The Unaccountability Machine— Dan Davies

Part 1: The Nature of the Crisis

1.Something’s Up

““Capitalism is disappearing, but Socialism is not replacing it. What is now arising is a new kind of planned, centralised society which will be neither capitalist nor, in any accepted sense of the word, democratic. The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers.”

George Orwell, ‘James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution’,1946

Then the 2008 financial crisis happened, followed by a long period of recession and austerity, and suddenly it turned out that the technocratic consensus wasn’t as competent or moderate as it had appeared. Ten to twenty per cent of the electorate suddenly realized that they might have to take an interest in politics after all. So they started paying attention again, and they didn’t have the basic assumptions of the mainstream. All they knew was that the people who used to be in charge seemed to have screwed things up mightily.

From a cybernetic point of view, it’s interesting as an example of how the systems and structures mattered so much more than the individuals involved. The development of the Friedman doctrine into the intellectual backing for the leveraged buyout boom and the private equity industry are best seen as a conflict between two comprehensive systems of interest, both of which might have regarded the other as a threat. The great unremarked class struggle that happened in the 1970s and 1980s was that between capitalism and managerialism.

The managers lost this struggle, pretty comprehensively. And as we’ve seen, the combination of the blind spots in management and the blind spots in economics came together to produce an ideology which was bound to remove management capacity. And that created further blind spots, and further reduced the system’s ability to cope with shocks. The story of how we got to where we are is a story of the attempts of the system to cope with this, and to search for short-term equilibrium.

The imposition of Friedmanism and the debt burden in the corporate sector gave a clear signal about the new priorities, but the equivalent processes in the public sector just added a lot of noise. The system was calling for ‘reform’ and revolution, but not giving any clues as what specifically ought to be done.

And so the progress of outsourcing and decerebration ended up being even more intense, and the public sector became as big a fee pool as the private sector for the consultancy industry. This had the effect of closing off the other possible way in which the working class might have insured themselves against volatility — through the policies of governments that they elected.

There are a number of models, most of them ignored for decades, in which the corporate sector provides a stabilising function, insuring the working class against fluctuations in the business cycle, rather than expecting them to soak up the volatility.

The intriguing thing is that Simon and Galbraith didn’t write polemics to the effect that this was how corporations should behave — they just described what was in front of them at the time. Before Milton Friedman’s essay, lots of people assumed that this was just naturally the way things would tend. Without the Friedman fiction by, without very great re-engineering of the systems of corporate finance, the industrial economy might have just gone on and developed into a technostructure.

Maybe they were right? It would certainly be good if they were, because that might indicate a much easier path to defuse the immediate source of crisis. If the problem with the modern corporation is the result of the capitalist counter-revolution against the managerial class, we just need to change the terms of the battle.