Burnham, Elon, and the Revenge of Entrepreneurial Capitalism(eriktorenberg.substack.com)
eriktorenberg.substack.com
Burnham, Elon, and the Revenge of Entrepreneurial Capitalism
https://eriktorenberg.substack.com/p/burnham-elon-and-the-revenge-of-entrepreneurial
51 comments
This behavior isn’t atypical for him, nor is it for the “elite” celebrity entrepreneurs featured in endless news cycles. Reminds me of Dov Charney, an employer I worked for, who was more than willing to chase his coked-up half-baked ideas at expense of his company and the livelihoods of thousands of workers. I’m afraid Elon is not a novel case nor an interesting one.
> It's quite clear that Musk doesn't have anyone around who is willing or able to do that
How can you say that with such certainty? Maybe he’s not listening to them. Same for Kanye. A lot of people spoke with him about his condition. Did that make any difference?
Real example about Musk: a lot of people told him to not start SpaceX. Did he stop? I’m glad though he did not.
How can you say that with such certainty? Maybe he’s not listening to them. Same for Kanye. A lot of people spoke with him about his condition. Did that make any difference?
Real example about Musk: a lot of people told him to not start SpaceX. Did he stop? I’m glad though he did not.
Pushing for innovation is one thing. Messing erratically with people's minds careers at a large scale is another one. The former does not excuse or justify the latter. Firing people can be necessary but what he did this week was just crazy in a bad way.
> Messing erratically with people's minds careers at a large scale is another one. The former does not excuse or justify the latter. Firing people can be necessary but what he did this week was just crazy in a bad way.
I condemn that
I condemn that
Without speculating about his mental state, which doesn't only apply to him but to other polarizing public figures, it definitely seems like his actions are larger-than-life and controversial. I'd argue that a lot of it is probably carefully cultivated, but the monomaniacal, megalomaniacal style is just off-putting for the masses exhausted by celebrity spotlight chasing (even if it might serve to elide all sorts of decisions the public might not be looking at):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33659992
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33659992
Is it really an unusual mental state for Musk?
Seems like normal behaviour for him, he's often in the news for being a dick, just as much as he is for his entrepreneurial ventures.
Seems like normal behaviour for him, he's often in the news for being a dick, just as much as he is for his entrepreneurial ventures.
As another bipolar individual: I must agree that he reminds me deeply of my hypomanic episodes I had (before it developed into full blown bipolar).
There could be more to the story but I believe Elon Musk has said that he has autism. I’ve heard it said that autism is often misdiagnosed as bipolar because they are similar in some ways. That being said I would say there’s a difference between a hypomanic/depression swing/episode and an intense interest/ burnout swing/episode.
More on the topic, the things you listed as responsible management are all removing agency from the person and treating them like children because otherwise you can’t be trusted. Imo being responsible is learning to manage your own issues as an adult.
More on the topic, the things you listed as responsible management are all removing agency from the person and treating them like children because otherwise you can’t be trusted. Imo being responsible is learning to manage your own issues as an adult.
I think the frustrating thing for me is that the extreme reaction to his actions are really about his politics. I have no doubt that he would be being praised for saving Twitter instead of ridiculed for ‘destroying’ it if he had been toeing the party line.
Toeing the party line how? Any CEO who takes control of a company and behaves erratically towards its workforce, at he is doing now, would get criticized. The only difference is that alternate version of Musk might get called a hypocrite or a fraud, so just a different set of insults.
SBF was a huge Democratic Party donor and he's not escaping severe criticism because of it, even if the NYT and some other outlets might've gone easy on him. The court of public opinion is still severely against him.
SBF was a huge Democratic Party donor and he's not escaping severe criticism because of it, even if the NYT and some other outlets might've gone easy on him. The court of public opinion is still severely against him.
Aha of course, the democrats would have applauded brutally laying off 75% of the workforce had he been “toeing the party line”.
Yes? Imagine some rich guy bought out Fox News or something and laid everybody off. Democrats would be cheering in the streets.
Applauded? Maybe not. But covered for him? Absolutely.
It’s how politics works in the US. If you’re on “our team” your faults are overlooked. On the “other team”? Clearly unfit for your position.
And the fun part is they’ll often make such comments the same day.
It’s how politics works in the US. If you’re on “our team” your faults are overlooked. On the “other team”? Clearly unfit for your position.
And the fun part is they’ll often make such comments the same day.
I really fail to see the logic here, if Donald trump remained a Democrat in 2016 he would 100% not get nominated. Just look at what happened with Bloomberg.
Show some examples of this, AFAIK if you go against the voters you're out.
Show some examples of this, AFAIK if you go against the voters you're out.
Examples are numerous.
Republicans questions election results without proof and they are "undermining democracy". Hilary Clinton calls Trump an "illegitimate president" in 2019 and it's crickets.
Of course they'll wave their hands saying "it's different", but it's not. Either denying election results without evidence is wrong or it's not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
And the Republicans do the same thing on different issues - talking about wasteful spending and then turn around support wasteful spending themselves.
It’s hypocritical and unsurprising most voters don’t believe anything politicians say.
Republicans questions election results without proof and they are "undermining democracy". Hilary Clinton calls Trump an "illegitimate president" in 2019 and it's crickets.
Of course they'll wave their hands saying "it's different", but it's not. Either denying election results without evidence is wrong or it's not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
And the Republicans do the same thing on different issues - talking about wasteful spending and then turn around support wasteful spending themselves.
It’s hypocritical and unsurprising most voters don’t believe anything politicians say.
The first example is just not comparable, republicans are to this day proclaiming election stolen without ANY evidence of fraud.
While the 2016 event has always been about Russian election interference NOT election conspiracy by democrats.
The article you provided is Hillary saying sour grapes (not sure why poor ol Jimmy is asked about it), not rambling about crazy conspiracies to the point of embracing it.
Second example is more make sense, because Republicans strategy since Gingrich (of never compromise always obstruct), so if democrats are in favor of A then republican strategy is to literally advocate for B even though they are also for A (look at gun control passed in red states or voter encouragement laws).
While the 2016 event has always been about Russian election interference NOT election conspiracy by democrats.
The article you provided is Hillary saying sour grapes (not sure why poor ol Jimmy is asked about it), not rambling about crazy conspiracies to the point of embracing it.
Second example is more make sense, because Republicans strategy since Gingrich (of never compromise always obstruct), so if democrats are in favor of A then republican strategy is to literally advocate for B even though they are also for A (look at gun control passed in red states or voter encouragement laws).
This is what I'm talking about.
Hilary said, without any proof, "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did."
But you make excuses about "sour grapes". It's not, she making claims of "voter suppression", "hacking" that resulted in a unfair election. That's a very serious accusation and undermines the election process. Just as serious as Republicans claiming election fraud.
Either making claims about illegitimate elections is wrong or not.
Hilary said, without any proof, "I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did."
But you make excuses about "sour grapes". It's not, she making claims of "voter suppression", "hacking" that resulted in a unfair election. That's a very serious accusation and undermines the election process. Just as serious as Republicans claiming election fraud.
Either making claims about illegitimate elections is wrong or not.
The difference is she's not wrong about those things (3/4 of them):
there was interference in the election (hacking) Republicans have pushed for voter suppression "fake" stories did plague her election (emails, benghazi) voter purge I'm not sure what that is suppose to be about in this context.
And this is coming from a person that "hates" Hillary.
I don't make any excuse for her statements, I'm saying she not Donald trump who controls and influences their party.
there was interference in the election (hacking) Republicans have pushed for voter suppression "fake" stories did plague her election (emails, benghazi) voter purge I'm not sure what that is suppose to be about in this context.
And this is coming from a person that "hates" Hillary.
I don't make any excuse for her statements, I'm saying she not Donald trump who controls and influences their party.
How is her conduct during the Benghazi crisis and her leaked emails “interference”? Those seem like legitimate things for voters to take into consideration?
Again, Republicans say there were issues with the election and it’s “threatening democracy”, Hilary does it and everyone thinks it fine.
It’s hypocritical.
Again, Republicans say there were issues with the election and it’s “threatening democracy”, Hilary does it and everyone thinks it fine.
It’s hypocritical.
By 'party line' you surely mean that old-fashioned rule where business owners are praised for not destroying their business willy-nilly?
Article suggests the lack of ownership by the managerial class corrupts incentives, and that owner-operated companies will win out due to an alignment between company management and long term strategy.
Interesting to see how that's going for Facebook, Twitter.
Interesting to see how that's going for Facebook, Twitter.
You could also argue how much is Elon Musk really an old school industrialist when many of his companies are very intertwined with the government. Tesla selling regulatory credits to other automakers, SpaceX with goverment contracts, ...
So I not sure if managerialism vs industrialist is the right divide here. But there is some divide that makes Elon owning Twitter more notable than Blackrock owning it for some reason.
So I not sure if managerialism vs industrialist is the right divide here. But there is some divide that makes Elon owning Twitter more notable than Blackrock owning it for some reason.
The government has always been a customer. Companies in many industries can compete for government contracts. Going back the to industrialist days the gov was providing subsidies as well, eg. for railroads
Isn't that more of a virtue of the industries he is in rather than specifics of the companies he has built?
SpaceX gets government contracts, yes, but no more than Boeing or Lockheed Martin. You can also argue they give a lot more value for the public money they do get, relative to the industry incumbents.
Similarly, any other car company that had bothered to make a viable electric car could have cashed in on the regulatory credits. In fact Toyota, the biggest car company in the world, was doing this for a decade with the Prius, until they dropped the ball on going full electric.
SpaceX gets government contracts, yes, but no more than Boeing or Lockheed Martin. You can also argue they give a lot more value for the public money they do get, relative to the industry incumbents.
Similarly, any other car company that had bothered to make a viable electric car could have cashed in on the regulatory credits. In fact Toyota, the biggest car company in the world, was doing this for a decade with the Prius, until they dropped the ball on going full electric.
That's a good point. The piece fails to address the many ills of the entrepreneurial capitalism it describes, probably owing to Silicon Valley's tendency towards self flattery. It's remarkable how poorly the industry has fared now that the Fed has closed the spigot of free money.
FTX is an example of entrepreneurial capitalism!
Too bad the piece never mentions it.
The managerial class often gets generous stock options. A lot of them prefer to convert them into cash as soon as they can, rather than to align with company interests and gamble for their own success.
Perhaps it has more to do with the one guy who calls the shots more than not owning any of the company.
>Managers, consciously or unconsciously, are more likely to create invisible problems to justify their job. Or worse, they prevent real problems from being solved in order to preserve their scope. They are incentivized to do so: If someone is in charge of a problem, and that problem is solved, they no longer have a job.
It should be secondary if Musk is more like a manager or an entrepreneur. The question is whether he personally can make Twitter better or not.
There come mixed signals from his other investments but it stands out that he questions existing procedures within industries. As such, despite all the negative decisions, it is quite likely that he can lift Twitter's roadblocks. It could as well be Twitter that is the globally dominating social network.
It should be secondary if Musk is more like a manager or an entrepreneur. The question is whether he personally can make Twitter better or not.
There come mixed signals from his other investments but it stands out that he questions existing procedures within industries. As such, despite all the negative decisions, it is quite likely that he can lift Twitter's roadblocks. It could as well be Twitter that is the globally dominating social network.
What were the twitter roadblocks exactly?
Whatever prevents twitter from expanding further. It's not obvious but I can imagine that Elon Musk can instill the spirit into Twitter to figure it out. They had Vine, without creating Tiktok.
Unlike Facebook, they don't seem to experiment. Facebook tries to offer everything that people want from a social network, when it sees other social networks doing it first. If Twitter becomes like SpaceX or Tesla, it could be Twitter that is doing things first.
Unlike Facebook, they don't seem to experiment. Facebook tries to offer everything that people want from a social network, when it sees other social networks doing it first. If Twitter becomes like SpaceX or Tesla, it could be Twitter that is doing things first.
This class analysis seems overcomplicated. What makes Musk's leadership "entrepreneurial capitalism" as opposed to managerialism? Musk is a member of the PMC! You may consider him a more competent, assertive, and unorthodox manager, at best, but he is still a manager. And as his control solidifies, is he going to make all of the management decisions still? No, he will institute likely handpicked managers who he entrusts. Who are ultimately still members of the managerial class.
When HN preaches the benefits of founder-led companies, it does not claim that founders are a different class from other types of CEOs. More hands-on and with more personally invested, sure. But are all founders truly different from the managerial class? That seems to be more of a management style than anything. And founder-led companies are often less than successful- just ask Dorsey himself. Was he PMC? Was he not an entrepreneur capitalist when he was CEO of Twitter the second time around? This is all a lot of half-baked analysis to claim that one set of presumably more able management and an older ossified set of management are two entirely different classes of people.
When HN preaches the benefits of founder-led companies, it does not claim that founders are a different class from other types of CEOs. More hands-on and with more personally invested, sure. But are all founders truly different from the managerial class? That seems to be more of a management style than anything. And founder-led companies are often less than successful- just ask Dorsey himself. Was he PMC? Was he not an entrepreneur capitalist when he was CEO of Twitter the second time around? This is all a lot of half-baked analysis to claim that one set of presumably more able management and an older ossified set of management are two entirely different classes of people.
The essential difference between PMC and Entrepreneur is skin in the game. Musk is the manage and primary equity owner, whereas the PMC is managerial only. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent is up to you, but the whole point of the article is this distinction.
Perhaps then this article should have highlighted the importance of Musk taking Twitter private, and the current equity situation with the company. The graphic included shows him taking on 9% of shares, which seems substantial... but is far from a majority? So maybe this article should explain how Musk's current position is substantially different from Dorsey's second tenure, which ended in November 2021. Was Dorsey no longer entrepreneur, but a PMC? But this article quotes Musk bemoaning his departure? Did entrepreneurial capitalism really disappear from Twitter in the past twelve months without Dorsey? This essay is making a lot of assumptions without quantitative analysis.
Musk isn't PMC, he's an owner of multiple companies. That puts him squarely in the capitalist class.
Anyone can start a corporation and own multiple of them. I do, and they cost me between $40-100 each. To my surprise when I mailed my documents to the Secretary of State they didn’t check my “Capitalist Class” ID card.
He owns 9% of Twitter, according to the article. Is that sufficient, or does it still fall prey to the "split between ownership and control" that managerial capitalism has, as this article puts it? How much less ownership did Parag Agrawal have? How much did Jack Dorsey have- he didn't leave until a year ago! If the fault of Twitter is a PMC-driven culture, why wasn't having Dorsey, a founder-capitalist himself and also the owner of multiple companies, enough to staunch it?
He owned 9% of Twitter in April - that's what represented in the chart - the dates are clearly stated there.
So how much does he own now? Does he own more than previous Twitter CEOs did?
Is this the James Burnham who really wanted to use biological and chemical weapons in Vietnam? The James Burnham who thought Germany and Japan would win world war II? The James Burnham who was so blinded by his ideology that he couldn't see a way for the USSR to survive past WWII? Who was so paranoid he thought that China and the USSR never split up? The James Burnham whose ideas about the managerial revolution have been refuted and thrown away by modern scholars?
And how is this in any way related to Musk's absolutely insane antics at twitter? In no way at all. The article also suggests that Musk is good because twitter used to be owned by the Saudis, but forgets that Musks purchase was funded by the Saudis. It somehow manages to say nothing and contain pretty garish misrepresentations at the same time.
The blogpost also uses a lot of 4chan/libertarian dog whistles: "normie", "marketplace of ideas", references to Ayn Rand for petes sake.
Honestly, what a load of drivel.
And how is this in any way related to Musk's absolutely insane antics at twitter? In no way at all. The article also suggests that Musk is good because twitter used to be owned by the Saudis, but forgets that Musks purchase was funded by the Saudis. It somehow manages to say nothing and contain pretty garish misrepresentations at the same time.
The blogpost also uses a lot of 4chan/libertarian dog whistles: "normie", "marketplace of ideas", references to Ayn Rand for petes sake.
Honestly, what a load of drivel.
Indeed.
I was expecting perhaps a new and savage Bo Burnham musical takedown of Space Karen . . . instead it was fantastical Rand-esque fanfic salivating over some notion of überMuschk.
I was expecting perhaps a new and savage Bo Burnham musical takedown of Space Karen . . . instead it was fantastical Rand-esque fanfic salivating over some notion of überMuschk.
[deleted]
Total nitpick, because i generally agree, but “normie” is a 4chan/libertarian dog whistle? I don’t identify with that group at all but i use plenty. I just thought it referred to generally “the not nerdy / not terminally online crowd”.
You're right, it's pretty widespread these days, but in the early 2010s I would have associated it mostly with 4chan culture, although I suppose other communities would have used it as well. I'm not as terminally online anymore so my gut feeling might be wrong now, and I'll admit it may have been wrong for the 2010s too.
Possibly it's just the combo of crypto-fascist vibes and the use of juvenile terms like "normie" that triggers some 4chan detector in my brain.
Possibly it's just the combo of crypto-fascist vibes and the use of juvenile terms like "normie" that triggers some 4chan detector in my brain.
The guy is a dickhead, simple as that. Let’s not forget when he called that cave diver a pedo!
I won’t be giving any business associated with him any time or money.
I really don’t know why people worship him so much.
I won’t be giving any business associated with him any time or money.
I really don’t know why people worship him so much.
Best part: he's been claiming he has a bachelors in physics, he doesn't. He's tech illiterate, he can't manage for shit, he just makes up some silly sci-fi promises for most of his projects and then silently buries them later.
People treat him like he's a Henry Ford but he's more of a Kim Kardashian (except Kim has some actual talent). He really just wants attention and fame, most of his success is built by other people and he's just made very visible stunts to get the media to focus on him.
People treat him like he's a Henry Ford but he's more of a Kim Kardashian (except Kim has some actual talent). He really just wants attention and fame, most of his success is built by other people and he's just made very visible stunts to get the media to focus on him.
Lmao. What about Trump then? Elon doesn't represent anything now that I think of it. How many people from Elon's companies does anyone know of? He has successfully squandered all credit. Guy's the best tool in the world for taking everyone on a ride
It's quite clear that Musk doesn't have anyone around who is willing or able to do that. Most of us when we go hypo will end up blasting through our savings, screwing around (literally) and generally pissing off all around us by behaving in a self centred and irrational way, but ultimately the damage we do is limited mostly to ourselves. Elon on the other hand has spent billions on a company, apparently on a whim, probably during another episode, that he later regretted and tried to get out of, again presumably when he came down, and now appears to be taking a series of increasingly irrational and destructive decisions that are affecting the lives of many. To be honest, I think it's kind of sad to watch.