It's not frequently that a political analysis from 8 decades ago fits the description of today's reality. James Burnham's "management revolution" is an example of specified news with delayed ignition.
This book had a simple, but many talking subtitle in the original. It sounded "What is happening in the world?". That is simply, “What is happening in the world?” But it's not an exaggeration. That's enough. It seems that there should even be "What will happen in the world?"
Because the full mechanics of dominance, omnipotence and control described by the American sociologist, which is exercised by the winners of the title "management revolution" is full visible only in the modern world.
In the way Western societies of late capitalism are organised – how a class of managers and professionals control political processes, calling the various anti-democratic practices they use, the “fade of democracy”. A symbolic and procedural force to keep their power “the freedom of the media” or “the regulation of law”. Finally, we can see it where we see how managers have evolved towards transnational “management states” based on the technocratic dictatorship of apparent advancement and alleged concern for society.
James Burnham released the “Management Revolution” in 1941. He wasn't 40 yet. Intellectually, he just passed an crucial crossroads to the evolution of his views. Previously, he had a career with a young student and a socially active activist. Burnham belonged to this generation of American intellectuals who, from the experience of the large crisis, were convinced of the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism. The second half of the 1930s ended with Burnham under the sign of commitment to the improvement of the labour movement in the States. His paths even crossed briefly with Lw Trocki himself – a russian dissident focusing then fantasies of the western left on non-stalline communism.
But in 1941 Burnham was already at the next stage. Having finished working with American communists (Burnham then wrote the loud text “Why I reject dialectical materialism”) entered the intellectually most prolific phase of his career. This is how the “Management Revolution” was created.
In this book Burnham came from the same conclusion that he was so attracted to, attracted and electrified at the time audiences in Marxism. The American had no uncertainty that capitalists would yet lose the past class fight. But unlike Marx and his epigons, Burnham besides felt that this defeat of capitalists did not mean triumph and taking control of the political and economical process by the working class.
In his opinion, in the successive stages of capitalism (or what capitalism will replace in practice) the real winners will be the alleged management class.
This management class was defined by Burnham as all those who carry out the assignments of direction and coordination of modern production processes. This class will, for example, include executive directors, top-level managers, members of various supervisory boards, engineers or representatives of the bureaucracy, government or administration. They will push – according to Burnham – to defend the capitalists themselves. That's real business owners. The second will not be able to – mainly due to the immense scale of production – de facto exercise control over the economy. Being de facto incapacitated in its power by “the management class”.
However, the management of the working class will be even clearer. Theoretically, both groups should be rather close. Especially since in a natural way any highly qualified workers will regularly supply ranks of the management class. And specified a promotion will be much easier than getting a individual into the ranks of capitalists.
In practice, however, the bonds of solidarity between managers and workers will not flourish. On the contrary. The management class will realize rather rapidly that no permanent social shift towards "emancipation of workers" or even greater social equality is in their interest. specified a change will mean the failure of their privileged social position by managers. And if any movements – even as part of leftist or democratic political discourses – appear on the stage, in practice they will be treated very suspiciously by the management class. And in practice, they will most likely even be actively combated.
Initially, Burnham's publication met with a very good reception in American intellectual circles. “Life” magazine already recognized it as 1 of the most breathtaking books of 1924-1944 (Burnham was adjacent to Hemingway, Proust, and Steinbeck). The American was convinced that he had successfully analysed the fresh arrangement of class forces. More akin to what the authors specified as Milovan Jilas wrote about on the another side of the iron curtain. But then it got worse.
The more decades they continued to bring confirmation of the fact besides contained in the "Management Revolution", the more reluctantly described the fresh elites there looked into the mirror that Burnham had put on them. Gradually Burnham was pushed into the corner of a paleoconservativeist or libertarian-fool. The enemy of the “great state” and so of all social justice. By force, it was there that the authors began to make Burnham's thought. For example, Paul Gottfried, who built the concept of "management state" – a political organization that combined the economical and political dominance of the management class, pacifying all democratic attempts to counter their dominance, branding them as unjust and harmful. possibly even "democraticly questionable". It is worth mentioning that in the main (liberal) stream of contemporary debate of Burnham's epigons (he himself died in 1987) is far less. Until the crisis in 2008, the only specified case was John and Barbara Ehrenreichów – authors of the shorthand PMC (professional managerial class) and criticizing management from old-left social justice positions.
Reading Burnham today, it seems that the years that have passed since the creation of the concept of managerism service him more than hinder. A fewer years ago – even at a more preliminary phase of the alleged EU climate policy – Polish philosopher Marek Cichocki wrote a text in which he called the Green Deal just the latest version of the "management revolution". I totally agree with him.
This is in front of our eyes – whether in interior policy or on topics specified as the EU's climate policy – the dominant management class uses its advantage to establish its own power.
It is the Burnhamian professionals who set the course for the political framework of the dispute. They (via media or “expert discourse”) say what is allowed and what is not to be contested. They besides give names to political phenomena (who the left, who the right, who the politician and who do not) and make certain it is up to them to finance public debate. Burnham was right. They won. And all the remainder is unnecessary bother.
