QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
james burnham, industrial societies, capitalist class, managers, technocrats, economic planning, conservatism, compassionate, fiscal, fusion

The Managerial Revolution

“| Attribute | Details...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World

First edition book cover

| Attribute | Details The Managerial Revolution: What is Happile in the World is a book authored by the intellectually formidable James Burnham , first published in 1941. This work, emerging from the crucible of global upheaval, delves into a profound societal transformation, positing that the reins of power in advanced industrial societies were inexorably shifting. Burnham argued that the traditional capitalist class , whose authority was rooted in direct ownership, was being supplanted by a nascent, powerful group: the managers and technocrats . These new elites, he contended, would come to dominate the economic system not through traditional ownership, but through their indispensable control over the complex mechanisms of modern production and distribution, often facilitated by extensive economic planning . It was a rather stark, if not entirely novel, prognosis for the future of industrial civilization.

Context: Conservatism in the United States

Burnham’s work, though often viewed through the lens of political and economic theory, sits within a broader intellectual tradition that profoundly influenced American conservatism . The ideas he advanced, particularly regarding the nature of power and class, resonate with various schools of thought within this diverse movement.

Schools

The landscape of American conservatism is multifaceted, encompassing a spectrum of ideological approaches. These include:

  • Compassionate conservatism, which emphasizes social welfare and community.
  • Fiscal , focusing on economic prudence and limited government spending.
  • Fusion , an attempt to merge libertarianism and traditionalism.
  • Liberal , a more moderate, often pro-business stance.
  • Libertarian , prioritizing individual liberty and minimal state intervention.
  • Moderate , generally centrist within the conservative framework.
  • Movement , representing the organized political force of conservatism.
  • Nationalist , emphasizing national identity and interests.
  • Christian , intertwining religious faith with national identity.
  • Neo- , advocating for a robust foreign policy and moral clarity.
  • Paleo- , a more traditionalist, often isolationist and culturally conservative stance.
  • Postliberal , critiquing the tenets of modern liberalism and seeking alternatives.
  • Progressive , a historical strain that sought to use government to promote social order and efficiency.
  • Social , concerned with moral and cultural issues.
  • Straussian , drawing on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, emphasizing classical political thought and virtue.
  • Traditionalist , valuing established institutions, customs, and hierarchies.

Principles

Core principles often define American conservatism, serving as foundational tenets:

History

The historical trajectory of American conservatism reveals its evolution and adaptation:

Intellectuals

Key thinkers have shaped and articulated conservative thought:

Politicians

Numerous political figures have championed conservative causes and policies:

Jurists

Legal scholars and judges have played a significant role in interpreting and applying conservative principles in the legal sphere:

Commentators

Public intellectuals and media personalities often shape and disseminate conservative ideas:

Activists

Individuals who actively promote conservative causes and influence public discourse:

Literature

Significant works that have contributed to conservative thought:

Parties

Both active and defunct political parties have served as vehicles for conservative ideals:

Active

Defunct

Think tanks

These organizations generate research and policy recommendations from a conservative perspective:

Media

Conservative viewpoints are disseminated through various media channels:

Newspapers

Journals

TV channels

Websites

Other

Other organizations

Various groups organize and advocate for conservative principles across different sectors:

Congressional caucuses

Economics

Gun rights

Identity politics

Nativist

Religion

Watchdog groups

Youth/student groups

Social media

Miscellaneous

Other

Movements

Various social and political movements are associated with conservatism:

Further areas of study connected to American conservatism:

Summary

Burnham’s rather audacious work, The Managerial Revolution (1941), laid out a provocative theory regarding the trajectory of global capitalism , particularly as it had developed and mutated during the tumultuous interwar period . He didn’t mince words, opening with the assertion that “It is a historical law, with no apparent exceptions so far known, that all social and economic groups of any size strive to improve their relative position with respect to power and privilege in society.” A rather obvious observation, one might think, yet it serves as the bedrock for his subsequent analysis. From this premise, he then meticulously, if somewhat grimly, assessed three potential futures for the existing social order:

  1. The notion that capitalism , as a form of social and economic organization, was an enduring, permanent fixture destined to continue indefinitely.
  2. The Marxist prophecy that capitalism was merely a temporary stage, inherently flawed and fated to collapse, to be inevitably replaced by socialism .
  3. His own, more unsettling, proposition: that capitalism was already undergoing a profound metamorphosis, actively transforming into an entirely new, non-socialist societal structure.

Burnham, with a certain detached pragmatism, quickly dismissed the first possibility. Given that capitalism had a discernible genesis, largely in the 14th century, the idea of it being an immutable, eternal form was, to him, historically naive. Furthermore, he pointed to widespread mass unemployment, a haunting specter of the Great Depression , as a critical indicator. Drawing parallels to the twilight years of ancient economic systems, such as those of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire , he declared mass unemployment “a symptom that a given type of social organization is just about finished.” The pervasive global joblessness of the 1930s, therefore, was not merely a cyclical downturn but a profound signal that capitalism itself was “not going to continue much longer.” A rather definitive pronouncement, wouldn’t you agree?

While Burnham found common ground with Marxists on the inevitable decline of the capitalist class in the ongoing class struggle , his divergence from orthodox Marxism was stark. He flatly rejected the idea that the working class would emerge victorious. In his view, the working class was simply too fragmented, too disorganized, and fundamentally too weak to seize and maintain power. Instead, he advanced the theory of a new, ascendant force: the managerial class . This class, he argued, was poised to claim dominance over the enfeebled capitalists. Burnham precisely defined this emerging class as those individuals whose primary function involved “the tasks of the technical direction and coordination of the process of production.”

To provide a clearer picture, he enumerated the members of this burgeoning elite, including “operating executives, superintendents, administrative engineers, supervisory technicians; or, in government… administrators, commissioners, bureau heads, and so on.” These were not the owners, but the indispensable operators, the ones who truly understood how the intricate machinery of modern industry and governance functioned.

The rise of this managerial class , according to Burnham, was not a mere accident but a direct consequence of the escalating complexity and sheer scale of modern economies. As industries grew, technologies advanced, and global markets intertwined, the demands for hyper-specific technical knowledge and sophisticated organizational oversight became paramount. The traditional capitalist class , often characterized by passive ownership and financial speculation, simply could not possess all the specialized expertise required to manage these vast, intricate systems. Consequently, they were compelled to delegate the actual running of their enterprises to these highly skilled managers. In doing so, Burnham contended, the capitalists inadvertently rendered themselves superfluous, for it was the managers who held the true operational control over production.

This arrangement, where nominal ownership resided with one class and practical control with another, was, in Burnham’s estimation, inherently unstable and utterly irreconcilable. The inevitable outcome, he predicted, would be the managerial class — the actual controllers of production — asserting their dominance by seizing it from the capitalists, whose ownership had become a mere legal fiction. This transfer of power, he argued, would largely materialize through the implementation of state ownership of production. Given the immense complexity and gargantuan scale of modern economies, Burnham believed that this form of centralized, state-controlled ownership, orchestrated by the expert managerial elite, would prove far more efficient than the fragmented, often chaotic, rule by individual capitalists. The “managerial revolution,” as he termed it, would thus culminate in the demise of traditional capitalist democracy and the ascendance of managerial control over production, utilizing what he chillingly called “the unlimited state” as its primary instrument. This “unlimited state” implied a vast, centralized apparatus, unconstrained by traditional liberal democratic checks and balances, serving the rationalized, efficient aims of the managerial class.

In his analysis of the nascent societal forms emerging across the globe, Burnham perceived striking parallels, or “certain commonalities,” between the economic structures of Nazi Germany , Stalinist Russia, and even America under Roosevelt’s New Deal . A controversial grouping, to say the least, yet he insisted that in the remarkably short span since the First World War , a new social order had solidified. In this emerging reality, a distinct social group or class of “managers” had embarked upon a relentless “drive for social dominance, for power and privilege, for the position of ruling class.” He wasn’t entirely inventing this concept; for at least a decade prior, the idea of a “separation of ownership and control” within the modern corporation had gained traction in America, notably articulated in the influential work The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means. Burnham, however, dramatically expanded this observation. He posited that irrespective of whether ownership was corporate and private, or statist and governmental, the fundamental divide between the ruling elite (comprising executives and managers, bolstered by an army of bureaucrats and functionaries) and the broader mass of society was no longer rooted in ownership, but rather in the direct control of the means of production. Ownership, in this new paradigm, was becoming a secondary, almost symbolic, concern compared to the practical ability to direct and administer.

Burnham was careful to emphasize that “New Dealism,” as he referred to President Roosevelt’s sweeping reforms, “is not, let me repeat, a developed, systematized managerial ideology.” It was, rather, a transitional phase, a set of policies and a prevailing sentiment that, in its own “more confused, less advanced way,” was undeniably propelling American capitalism down a distinctly “managerial direction.” He observed that the New Deal had subtly yet effectively disseminated a new set of priorities:

“In its own more confused, less advanced way, New Dealism too has spread abroad the stress on the state as against the individual, planning as against private enterprise, jobs (even if relief jobs) against opportunities, security against initiative, ‘human rights’ against ‘property rights.’ There can be no doubt that the psychological effect of New Dealism has been what the capitalists say it has been: to undermine public confidence in capitalist ideas and rights and institutions. Its most distinctive features help to prepare the minds of the masses for the acceptance of the managerial social structure.”

He effectively argued that the New Deal’s emphasis on collective welfare, state intervention, and economic security, while perhaps well-intentioned, was inadvertently eroding the ideological foundations of private ownership and individual initiative that underpinned traditional capitalism . This, he believed, was conditioning the populace to accept a future where centralized control, rather than market forces, dictated economic life.

Based on his analysis, Burnham confidently predicted the decline of the capitalist class and the corresponding rise of this new managerial class , which would invariably direct both the state apparatus and industrial production. He controversially characterized both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as having already fully embraced this managerial model, which he considered economically superior to liberal capitalism . With the chilling logic of his thesis, he thus, and quite famously, made the spectacularly incorrect prediction that the Nazis would emerge victorious in World War II . His reasoning stemmed from the perceived efficiency and rationalized control inherent in their managerial structures, a view that history, with its usual disregard for elegant theories, would soon render utterly void.

Deeper themes

Beyond the immediate predictions, The Managerial Revolution delves into a more fundamental exploration of the transformation inherent in modern economic systems. It posits a society where the locus of control and the critical administrative decisions have shifted decisively into the hands of a new class of managers, fundamentally displacing the traditional capitalists or direct owners. This isn’t just a change in personnel; it’s a re-engineering of the entire power dynamic.

Description of capitalism:

Burnham first meticulously outlines the defining characteristics of traditional capitalism as he understood it:

  • Individual Ownership: At its heart, capitalism is predicated on the individual ownership of the means of production. Capitalists, by definition, possess the factories, the raw resources, and the essential tools necessary for generating wealth. Their power stems directly from this legal title and the assets it represents.
  • Profit Motivation: The driving force behind all economic activity within a capitalist framework is the relentless pursuit of profit. Owners engage in production and commerce with the singular aim of maximizing financial returns for themselves. Every decision, theoretically, is filtered through this lens of profitability.
  • Market Competition: Enterprises operate within relatively free and competitive markets. Here, the forces of supply and demand are meant to be the invisible hand, autonomously determining prices, allocating resources, and regulating the volume of production. This decentralized system is a hallmark of classical capitalism .
  • Labor as a Commodity: In this system, labor itself is treated as a commodity. Workers, lacking ownership of the means of production, sell their labor power to capitalists in exchange for wages. Burnham, like many before him, observes that these wages are typically less than the full value of the goods and services the workers produce, creating the surplus value that fuels capitalist profit.
  • Decentralized Decision-Making: Economic decisions, from what to produce to how much, are largely made by individual owners and consumers. These decisions are guided by market signals – prices, demand, competition – rather than by a central authority or overarching plan. This stands in stark contrast to the planned economies that would emerge in the 20th century.

Predictions on post-capitalism:

Having laid out the foundations of capitalism , Burnham then launches into his predictions for its inevitable successor, the managerial society:

  • End of Traditional Capitalism: Burnham emphatically argues that the traditional form of capitalism , defined by private ownership and direct control by the owners, is not merely evolving but being actively “supplanted.” This isn’t a gentle transition but a fundamental overthrow, a structural shift where the old order gives way to a new, distinct form of economic organization, one where control, not ownership, is paramount.
  • Rise of the Managerial Class: This is the core of his thesis. A new, formidable class emerges: the managers. These are not just clerks or middle-level supervisors, but the high-level administrators, bureaucrats, and executives who become the de facto controllers of economic resources. They are the ones making the operational decisions, directing the labor, and allocating the capital, effectively replacing the old capitalist class whose legal ownership becomes increasingly symbolic.
  • Technological and Organizational Changes: The impetus for this epochal shift is rooted in the burgeoning complexity and ever-increasing scale of modern industry. The advent of advanced technologies, intricate supply chains, and vast, multi-layered organizational structures demands specialized management skills that the traditional, often generalist, capitalists simply cannot provide. The sheer technical acumen required to run a massive industrial complex makes the manager, with their specific expertise, indispensable.
  • Decline of Property Rights: In this emerging order, the once sacrosanct significance of private property rights begins to wane. While legal ownership might persist in some form, it diminishes in practical importance. The ability to manage and direct resources becomes far more crucial and powerful than the mere legal title of ownership. Control, not possession, becomes the ultimate arbiter of power.
  • Political Implications: The managerial revolution, Burnham predicts, will inevitably reshape governmental structures. It will favor more centralized and bureaucratized forms of governance, which naturally align with the needs and operational logic of the managerial class. The “unlimited state” serves as the ideal vehicle for the rationalized, efficient administration that managers inherently seek.
  • Global Perspective: Burnham views this profound societal shift not as an isolated national phenomenon but as a pervasive, global trend. He believes it is affecting diverse political systems—capitalist , fascist , and socialist states—all converging, albeit through different ideological masks, toward a common managerial structure.
  • Future Predictions: Looking ahead, he anticipates that these managerial societies will likely gravitate towards more overtly authoritarian structures. This is a logical, if grim, conclusion for Emma to consider: as managerial elites consolidate their power, they will inevitably seek to streamline and control economies and societies with maximum efficiency, often at the expense of individual liberties or democratic processes. The pursuit of order and technical optimization, in this view, often leads to a suppression of dissent and a concentration of authority.

Reception

Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution was not simply another academic treatise; it ignited considerable discussion and has proven remarkably influential across various academic disciplines, including political science and economics . Its core arguments continue to resonate in contemporary discussions surrounding corporate governance and the ever-shifting dynamics of economic power .

Perhaps its most enduring legacy in popular culture comes from its famous review by the inimitable George Orwell , penned in 1946 and titled “Second Thoughts on James Burnham .” Orwell, with his characteristic blend of intellectual rigor and moral clarity, found the central premise of Burnham’s book deeply “fascinating.” Yet, he simultaneously enumerated a significant “range of criticisms,” notably pointing out the glaring flaws in Burnham’s practical predictions regarding the outcome of World War II . Orwell, ever the realist, questioned the inherent determinism of Burnham’s theories and his tendency to extrapolate from current trends with an almost prophetic certainty, often overlooking the unpredictable nature of human agency and geopolitical events. He was particularly critical of Burnham’s “power worship,” arguing that Burnham admired success too readily, regardless of its moral implications, a trait Orwell found deeply unsettling.

Almost immediately upon its publication, in June 1941, the book faced a rather hostile review from Joseph Hansen , a loyalist of the Socialist Workers Party. Writing in the SWP’s theoretical magazine, Hansen leveled the serious accusation that Burnham had “surreptitiously lifting the central ideas” of his book from the Italian theorist Bruno Rizzi ’s La Bureaucratisation du Monde (1939). While the similarities between the two works are undeniable, there remains no concrete evidence that Burnham had direct knowledge of Rizzi’s book beyond the brief, passing references made by Leon Trotsky during his intense debates with Burnham. It is, however, acknowledged that Burnham was indeed influenced by the concept of bureaucratic collectivism , a theory advanced by the Trotskyist Yvan Craipeau . Yet, Burnham’s intellectual journey took a distinctly different path, moving towards a conservative Machiavellian viewpoint rather than adhering to a Marxist framework. This crucial philosophical divergence, which shaped his understanding of power and governance, was later explored in considerably greater detail in his subsequent work, The Machiavellians.

More recently, the publication Vox , in a 2022 analysis, offered a rather blunt assessment of Burnham’s predictive track record, stating unequivocally that “Virtually all of The Managerial Revolution’s major predictions—the coming collapse of capitalism, an Axis victory in World War II, the superior efficiency of state-run enterprises—were proven wrong.” It’s almost comically bad, isn’t it? History, it seems, has a particularly cruel sense of humor when it comes to grand theories. The article further elaborated on these failures: capitalism , far from collapsing, has demonstrated a remarkable, if often unsettling, resilience. The notion of an Axis victory was, of course, a catastrophic miscalculation. And the idea of “superior efficiency of state-run enterprises” has been broadly contradicted by decades of economic history, where market-driven economies have often outperformed their centrally planned counterparts in terms of innovation and productivity. The Vox piece highlights that “The power of the capitalist class has become more entrenched since the neoliberal revolution of the 1970s and ’80s and attendant skyrocketing inequality,” directly challenging Burnham’s thesis of their decline. Furthermore, the “rise of tech capitalism, with firms founded by individual innovators and technical experts,” such as those led by figures like Elon Musk , appears to actively disprove his theory that capitalists are incapable of performing technical and management tasks at scale. The modern titan of industry often embodies both roles, rendering Burnham’s strict class distinction somewhat quaint.

Despite these significant predictive failures, Burnham’s core idea of an unaccountable managerial class has experienced a curious resurgence and “gained traction among conservative intellectuals” in recent years. This renewed interest stems from a desire to identify and counteract what they perceive as the entrenched power of a modern administrative elite. In this contemporary interpretation, the concept of “woke ” ideology is often framed as the justifying narrative or “ideology” of this new, powerful class, providing a moral veneer for their perceived control over institutions, culture, and policy. It’s a testament to the enduring, if malleable, appeal of a theory that identifies a hidden hand guiding societal change, even when its initial predictions have spectacularly unraveled.

See also

  • Administrative state : A concept referring to the unelected bureaucracy within government that exercises significant power, often seen as a manifestation of a managerial class in the public sector.