In some ways this echoes Michael Young's point about meritocracy: that it establishes some set of credentials by which people can claim to deserve their wealth, and so those with wealth will pursue those credentials. This warps both the wealthy themselves (they have to make a claim which is either untrue or at least unrepresentative of the reality) and the credentialing system, which takes on the role of legitimation of inherited wealth, a role it is profoundly unsuited to.
But Young was writing in the Britain of the 1950s; we could certainly say that the two world wars had changed the nature of British aristocracy, but frankly less than it had been changed almost anywhere else. Holding up British aristocratic traditions as an alternative doesn't really work.
Hayek, writing only a little later, also argued for inherited wealth on a similar basis to your argument: that inherited wealth provides an opportunity for weirdness and experimentation, and this is useful to society as a whole even if the median aristocrat is not especially impressive. It's a neat argument but I think it misses some important things out.
Historically, aristocrats were not especially creative. The great works of medieval architecture were mostly religious, and the institutions taking the long-time-horizon were the monasteries. Aristocrats were not, by and large, sponsoring artists, historians, or philosophers, nor were the aristocrats themselves living especially interesting lives, for the most part. Aristocrats were concerned with acquisition and retention of wealth, through war and marriage. Sometimes war justified some risk-taking, but more often the conservative principle was dominant.
Capitalism was a challenge to this worldview precisely because it made conservatism dangerous: the world was changing and merely standing still was not enough. But the British experience - which leaves a baleful impact on the culture to this day - was one in which aristocrats would alternately co-opt or crush those whose innovations might upset the order too quickly. The oppositionalism of the British class system comes from this source: a recognition that the aristocrats have done nothing to deserve being in charge, but will insist on it anyway, and will warp any system that might change things. The terrible state of British management (https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-have-so-many-uk-companies-been-badly-managed-for-so-long) is directly downstream of this: management positions are still awarded as class perks rather than by merit; the second-order consequence is that even good managers find it hard to summon the moral authority to manage effectively, because this is a classic "market for lemons".
Grindslop is somewhat similar: it obscures the truth about what's really going on. The performance of working hard serves the same purpose as that of an elite education: it's a justification for success that can be defended in the current discourse. That it's an expensive performance which harms both the people who do it and the people who imitate it seems correct. I'd only caution that the traditional aristocracy really didn't do any better than this.
Great insight. I would go further and say that since the days of the Church, it's always been about status-signaling by insecure people. The two forms of modern aristocracy the article mentions are simply today's iteration tacitly agreed upon by their respective milieus.
For the majority in non-tech, "unenlightened" circles, the playbook has not changed: million-dollar travel packages and other lavish purchases are simply the easiest way for new money to buy their way into status according to the social class from which they came from.
Meanwhile, the ascetic workaholics look down on those still beholden to such ostentatious displays of material possession. This creates a race to the bottom among these people to see who can "suffer" the most not unlike the saint/monk-like dynamic the article highlights with parallels to the hagiography even.
The common thread across both groups is a narcissistic need to broadcast their lives to the general public and accrue an ROI in terms of social points. After all, if no one knows you suffered or booked that trip, what was it for? It may seem obvious to you and me that the "journey itself is it's own reward," but the difference between us, and such actors' psychology becomes clear in the decision whether or not to post.
The irony of it all is how true aristocrats who come from generations of family heritage have no need to share their personal lives on the internet because their place in the social hierarchy is secured not by public opinion but by private channels exclusive to their class.
Grindslop only exists because people feel the need to posture to the new class of VCs, most of which haven't actually built anything. Diff than a couple cycles ago. Also just saw the reference post right after I finished lol
Well said, beginning of my career I started out in such a company and although it advanced my career a lot because of the immense amount of responsibility I was cast into, I noticed near the end that the founders were just talking about hard work and liked the idea of it more than actually doing it. They came from wealth which is how they funded their business, they had to convince themselves they had all that which they had because of their hard work. But after a while it became difficult to hide their incompetence. No matter how many hours they pretended to grind, it was without purpose, and thus in the end it collapsed.
Lord, this was an ache to read in its accuracy. The performance of myth-making has replaced the story. The temple has become a theatre and we have masks 🎭 we applaud and laugh but truly do we cry as banished children of Eden without a sacred mission beyond meaningless sacrifice to… raise the next round of funding. No IPO will recover the spiritual devastation that does to the soul
Thank you for this piece, it reminds me that work - real work, not the time-for-money trade that many willingly and unwillingly walk through life, needs a teleology that matters. That makes the work a sacrifice to behold instead of a futile and hollow loss.
Amazing piece, really loved your Slootman example. I feel like grindslop is a consequence of a society that pays too little attention to depth of thought, and too much attention to performance and collective perception - resulting in these founders that almost care too little about the product and too much about the lifestyle they need people to know that they live...
aren’t poor people also quite bad at leisure these days?
On 996 culture vs innovation: remember that the commies also thought growth could only come from greater intensity (capital and human). We’re the odd ones for thinking you can just make a larger lever.
is the euro-aristo ideal the odd and unique thing, historically? Seems like grindslop is more common. Think of the mandarin elite’s emphasis on sublimating yourself into hard work, or that the Aztec’s finishing school for the elites was called something like “house of whips and penitence”… maybe it’s the presence of unfathomable state/economic structures (Hydraulic despotism/human sacrifices/ZIRP) that makes you do grindslop.
I can only hope you have a wonderful wife and family and whatnot, because if you can write and think like this and still have time maintain the former, THAT is well earned privilege. Good brain share thanks.
In some ways this echoes Michael Young's point about meritocracy: that it establishes some set of credentials by which people can claim to deserve their wealth, and so those with wealth will pursue those credentials. This warps both the wealthy themselves (they have to make a claim which is either untrue or at least unrepresentative of the reality) and the credentialing system, which takes on the role of legitimation of inherited wealth, a role it is profoundly unsuited to.
But Young was writing in the Britain of the 1950s; we could certainly say that the two world wars had changed the nature of British aristocracy, but frankly less than it had been changed almost anywhere else. Holding up British aristocratic traditions as an alternative doesn't really work.
Hayek, writing only a little later, also argued for inherited wealth on a similar basis to your argument: that inherited wealth provides an opportunity for weirdness and experimentation, and this is useful to society as a whole even if the median aristocrat is not especially impressive. It's a neat argument but I think it misses some important things out.
Historically, aristocrats were not especially creative. The great works of medieval architecture were mostly religious, and the institutions taking the long-time-horizon were the monasteries. Aristocrats were not, by and large, sponsoring artists, historians, or philosophers, nor were the aristocrats themselves living especially interesting lives, for the most part. Aristocrats were concerned with acquisition and retention of wealth, through war and marriage. Sometimes war justified some risk-taking, but more often the conservative principle was dominant.
Capitalism was a challenge to this worldview precisely because it made conservatism dangerous: the world was changing and merely standing still was not enough. But the British experience - which leaves a baleful impact on the culture to this day - was one in which aristocrats would alternately co-opt or crush those whose innovations might upset the order too quickly. The oppositionalism of the British class system comes from this source: a recognition that the aristocrats have done nothing to deserve being in charge, but will insist on it anyway, and will warp any system that might change things. The terrible state of British management (https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-have-so-many-uk-companies-been-badly-managed-for-so-long) is directly downstream of this: management positions are still awarded as class perks rather than by merit; the second-order consequence is that even good managers find it hard to summon the moral authority to manage effectively, because this is a classic "market for lemons".
Grindslop is somewhat similar: it obscures the truth about what's really going on. The performance of working hard serves the same purpose as that of an elite education: it's a justification for success that can be defended in the current discourse. That it's an expensive performance which harms both the people who do it and the people who imitate it seems correct. I'd only caution that the traditional aristocracy really didn't do any better than this.
Great insight. I would go further and say that since the days of the Church, it's always been about status-signaling by insecure people. The two forms of modern aristocracy the article mentions are simply today's iteration tacitly agreed upon by their respective milieus.
For the majority in non-tech, "unenlightened" circles, the playbook has not changed: million-dollar travel packages and other lavish purchases are simply the easiest way for new money to buy their way into status according to the social class from which they came from.
Meanwhile, the ascetic workaholics look down on those still beholden to such ostentatious displays of material possession. This creates a race to the bottom among these people to see who can "suffer" the most not unlike the saint/monk-like dynamic the article highlights with parallels to the hagiography even.
The common thread across both groups is a narcissistic need to broadcast their lives to the general public and accrue an ROI in terms of social points. After all, if no one knows you suffered or booked that trip, what was it for? It may seem obvious to you and me that the "journey itself is it's own reward," but the difference between us, and such actors' psychology becomes clear in the decision whether or not to post.
The irony of it all is how true aristocrats who come from generations of family heritage have no need to share their personal lives on the internet because their place in the social hierarchy is secured not by public opinion but by private channels exclusive to their class.
Man this was too good
Grindslop only exists because people feel the need to posture to the new class of VCs, most of which haven't actually built anything. Diff than a couple cycles ago. Also just saw the reference post right after I finished lol
Well said, beginning of my career I started out in such a company and although it advanced my career a lot because of the immense amount of responsibility I was cast into, I noticed near the end that the founders were just talking about hard work and liked the idea of it more than actually doing it. They came from wealth which is how they funded their business, they had to convince themselves they had all that which they had because of their hard work. But after a while it became difficult to hide their incompetence. No matter how many hours they pretended to grind, it was without purpose, and thus in the end it collapsed.
a secular society seeking their scrolling "egypts" . The best reading of my week. thank you, will.
Lord, this was an ache to read in its accuracy. The performance of myth-making has replaced the story. The temple has become a theatre and we have masks 🎭 we applaud and laugh but truly do we cry as banished children of Eden without a sacred mission beyond meaningless sacrifice to… raise the next round of funding. No IPO will recover the spiritual devastation that does to the soul
Thank you for this piece, it reminds me that work - real work, not the time-for-money trade that many willingly and unwillingly walk through life, needs a teleology that matters. That makes the work a sacrifice to behold instead of a futile and hollow loss.
Sublime
Amazing piece, really loved your Slootman example. I feel like grindslop is a consequence of a society that pays too little attention to depth of thought, and too much attention to performance and collective perception - resulting in these founders that almost care too little about the product and too much about the lifestyle they need people to know that they live...
Wonderful writing.
This was a phenomenal read, well done
Enjoyed this a lot. Three unrelated points:
aren’t poor people also quite bad at leisure these days?
On 996 culture vs innovation: remember that the commies also thought growth could only come from greater intensity (capital and human). We’re the odd ones for thinking you can just make a larger lever.
is the euro-aristo ideal the odd and unique thing, historically? Seems like grindslop is more common. Think of the mandarin elite’s emphasis on sublimating yourself into hard work, or that the Aztec’s finishing school for the elites was called something like “house of whips and penitence”… maybe it’s the presence of unfathomable state/economic structures (Hydraulic despotism/human sacrifices/ZIRP) that makes you do grindslop.
I can only hope you have a wonderful wife and family and whatnot, because if you can write and think like this and still have time maintain the former, THAT is well earned privilege. Good brain share thanks.