5 ms·

To me, the authors opening remark seems misleading at best. But of course criticisms of capitalism must begin by ignoring their hypotheses under a different or

To me, the authors opening remark seems misleading at best. But of course criticisms of capitalism must begin by ignoring their hypotheses under a different or past regime: > One of the most salient archetypes of our current period is called “success to the successful,” which fairly well describes twenty-first-century capitalism The implication being this is some new facet of our modern society, and not a part of past ones. I can’t think of a time period, especially when considering a global scale, when the authors claim of “success to the successful” was not true. In fact, I would say it is less true than ever before. Note that this isn’t the same as saying it does not apply now. Before the internet what opportunities existed for someone in say, rural Africa, to teach themselves skills to obtain success. Now? Marginal, sure, but absolutely present.

nine_k 3y ago
Indeed. Older societies ossified the success to a scale unimaginable under liberal capitalism. While it's not pronounced in the US due to its genesis, it's still well visible in the Old World. "Q: How to become wealthy in the UK? A: Try to be born to a family whose progenitor gained royal favor during the Norman conquest."
- codexjourneys 3y ago
  Essay author here. Success-to-the-successful is a real feature of our current economic landscape, more than in the semi-recent past (yes, ancient feudal societies were way worse). Here’s Harvard Business Review: “… we find that large corporations are more and more likely to maintain their dominant positions, while small corporations are less and less likely to become big and profitable.” Link: https://hbr.org/2019/08/the-gap-between-large-and-small-companies-is-growing-why https://hbr.org/2019/08/the-gap-between-large-and-small-comp... Here’s economist Austan Goolsbee in The New York Times highlighting growing corporate concentration even pre-pandemic: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/business/big-companies-are-starting-to-swallow-the-world.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/business/big-companies-ar... These are success-to-the-successful trends. Disruptive shocks (like when Google created a truly better search technology and dethroned AltaVista in the late ‘90s, or when the US gov broke up AT&T in 1984) can change those dynamics. That’s how Kodak, despite having lots of resources, lost dominance and eventually failed: they didn’t have the right non-monetary resources (innovative culture and support for change) at a critical time, so disruptive shock toppled them. Anyway, thanks for reading!
  - nine_k 3y ago
    Indeed! I do not argue at all; positive feedback loops exist in a lot of cases. Sometimes legal means limit their strength, but they look like objective properties of certain structures.
renewiltord 3y ago
That is actually interesting. After all, if one took a genetic view of the world: those genes that were most successful have a better chance of being successful. They have been copied many more times and therefore accompany many different variants. The ones that have been competed away will need to either confer significant advantage to some time or be lucky enough to be close enough to another that carries them along. That is a property that has existed for millennia, permitting useless genes that had past success to survive past when they provide strong utility. And that has nothing to do with capitalism. It is merely a natural effect.

nine_k 3y ago

Indeed. Older societies ossified the success to a scale unimaginable under liberal capitalism. While it's not pronounced in the US due to its genesis, it's still well visible in the Old World. "Q: How to become wealthy in the UK? A: Try to be born to a family whose progenitor gained royal favor during the Norman conquest."

codexjourneys 3y ago
Essay author here. Success-to-the-successful is a real feature of our current economic landscape, more than in the semi-recent past (yes, ancient feudal societies were way worse). Here’s Harvard Business Review: “… we find that large corporations are more and more likely to maintain their dominant positions, while small corporations are less and less likely to become big and profitable.” Link: https://hbr.org/2019/08/the-gap-between-large-and-small-companies-is-growing-why https://hbr.org/2019/08/the-gap-between-large-and-small-comp... Here’s economist Austan Goolsbee in The New York Times highlighting growing corporate concentration even pre-pandemic: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/business/big-companies-are-starting-to-swallow-the-world.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/business/big-companies-ar... These are success-to-the-successful trends. Disruptive shocks (like when Google created a truly better search technology and dethroned AltaVista in the late ‘90s, or when the US gov broke up AT&T in 1984) can change those dynamics. That’s how Kodak, despite having lots of resources, lost dominance and eventually failed: they didn’t have the right non-monetary resources (innovative culture and support for change) at a critical time, so disruptive shock toppled them. Anyway, thanks for reading!
- nine_k 3y ago
  Indeed! I do not argue at all; positive feedback loops exist in a lot of cases. Sometimes legal means limit their strength, but they look like objective properties of certain structures.

renewiltord 3y ago

That is actually interesting. After all, if one took a genetic view of the world: those genes that were most successful have a better chance of being successful. They have been copied many more times and therefore accompany many different variants. The ones that have been competed away will need to either confer significant advantage to some time or be lucky enough to be close enough to another that carries them along. That is a property that has existed for millennia, permitting useless genes that had past success to survive past when they provide strong utility. And that has nothing to do with capitalism. It is merely a natural effect.