James Burnham’s “Managerial Revolution” Theory

Exposure of the Unelected Bureaucratic Class that Truly Governs Modern Society

James Burnham’s “Managerial Revolution” theory, articulated in his seminal 1941 work of the same name, posits that a new social order has emerged. This order is dominated by a ruling class of managers who exercise substantial control over economic production and political power, thereby superseding traditional capitalist structures.

This theory is notable for its prescient analysis of the bureaucratic class’s rise and the implications for governance, accountability, and class dynamics in modern society. Burnham’s work challenges conventional notions of democracy, suggesting that unelected bureaucrats increasingly dictate policy and shape public life, raising significant questions about democratic legitimacy and accountability in contemporary governance.

Burnham characterizes the managerial class as distinct from both the capitalist elite and the working class, encompassing a diverse range of roles from administrative engineers to bureaucratic officials. This managerial elite operates within both public and private sectors, reflecting an intricate blend of interests that complicates traditional class analyses. The theory implies a systemic shift where the traditional capitalist class’s influence has diminished, leading to a continual struggle between the managerial class and the remnants of the proletariat, which has resonated with various political thinkers and movements since its inception.

The relevance of Burnham’s theory in contemporary politics is underscored by ongoing debates surrounding bureaucratic accountability and the role of the professional-managerial class (PMC) in shaping political discourse. Critics contend that this elite may undermine democratic processes and exacerbate class tensions, particularly as they often prioritize identity over economic issues, resulting in a disconnect with traditional working-class institutions. Conversely, supporters argue that the insights offered by Burnham provide a vital framework for understanding the evolving landscape of power and governance in an increasingly bureaucratic state.

Overall, the revival of Burnham’s “Managerial Revolution” theory sheds light on the complexities of modern governance, raising critical discussions about the implications of an unelected bureaucratic class and the challenges it poses to democratic engagement and accountability in a rapidly changing political environment.

The fully developed bureaucratic apparatus compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine with non-mechanical modes of production.

Max Weber

James Burnham: Background

James Burnham was born in 1905 in Chicago to a prosperous railway executive, Claude Burnham, who was a quintessential example of the American success story. Claude started as a poor English immigrant, delivering newspapers, and eventually rose to become a vice-president of the Burlington and Quincy Railroad, traveling with his family in a private railway car. This background likely influenced Burnham’s distinctive persona, which was perceived as both pugnacious and somewhat aloof within the intellectual community.

Despite his prominence in mid-20th century intellectual discourse, Burnham has largely faded from public memory, particularly among younger generations. His most recognized work, The Managerial Revolution, published in 1941, has remained a touchstone for discussions about the nature of power and governance in modern society. However, many people today only vaguely recall him, often associating him with Cold War politics and the Congress for Cultural Freedom, although he was not a supporter of Joseph McCarthy.

Burnham’s intellectual legacy is complex and multifaceted. He is often cited as a precursor to neoconservatism, as John Patrick Diggins noted his ideological journey from left to right. His thought has been characterized by a pragmatic approach to understanding historical and political realities, with some biographers identifying two distinct aspects of his philosophy: one that aligns with neoconservative ideas and another rooted in paleoconservatism. In the modern context, some contemporary commentators, including David Brooks and Matthew Continetti, suggest that Burnham’s insights are increasingly relevant for comprehending current political dynamics, even as many of his contributions remain overlooked.

Burnham’s theories about managerialism highlight the growing influence of a new class of professionals and experts who shape societal norms and governance. His analysis emphasizes the anxieties surrounding class reproduction, the impact of consumerism on everyday life, and the necessity of a continuous effort in education and personal development among the professional managerial class (PMC). As the discussion of class and power dynamics continues to evolve, Burnham’s observations may provide a useful framework for examining the complexities of modern governance and the bureaucratic structures that underpin it.

The Managerial Revolution Theory

Overview

James Burnham’s “Managerial Revolution” theory posits that a new social order has emerged, characterized by a ruling class of managers who dominate the structures of power and economic production. This shift indicates the decay of traditional capitalism and the rise of a managerial class that oversees economic processes, redefining social and political dynamics within society.

Characteristics of the Managerial Class

Burnham delineates the managerial class as distinct from both the capitalist and proletariat classes. He argues that the managers include a variety of roles such as production managers, administrative engineers, and bureaucratic officials, all of whom hold significant control over the means of production and distribution. This managerial elite operates not merely within private enterprises but increasingly within state structures, reflecting a blend of public and private interests that complicates traditional capitalist models.

The Nature of the Managerial Revolution

According to Burnham, the managerial revolution is an ongoing process initiated in the early 20th century, which he suggests will culminate in a complete transformation of society within fifty years from his writing in 1964. He contends that this revolution has already taken root in various nations, including the United States, Russia, Germany, and Italy, indicating a global trend toward managerial governance. Burnham argues that the traditional capitalist class has been largely dismantled, leaving the managerial class to engage in a continuous class struggle against the remnants of the proletariat.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Karl Marx

Ideological Implications

Burnham’s theory has implications that extend into the realm of political ideologies, which he describes as “syndromes” afflicting their proponents with inherent contradictions. He asserts that the managerial class, while appearing to maintain democratic trappings such as political opposition and a free press, ultimately seeks to consolidate its control over society. This observation has influenced various political thinkers, notably within the paleoconservative movement, highlighting a broader discourse on the role of unelected bureaucrats in modern governance.

The Bureaucratic Class

The bureaucratic class plays a crucial role in the functioning of modern governance, often acting as a bridge between elected officials and the citizenry. Unelected bureaucrats, who constitute this class, are pivotal in translating policy decisions into actionable regulations and services, thereby directly influencing the lives of citizens. While common discourse often frames bureaucrats as unaccountable and detached from democratic processes, recent research challenges this notion by highlighting the complex accountability mechanisms that exist within bureaucratic institutions.

Accountability Mechanisms

Traditional views suggest that accountability in the administrative state relies heavily on hierarchical structures and clear principal-agent relationships. However, emerging studies indicate that agency action is characterized by broad participation, ongoing negotiation, and multifaceted input, which collectively foster a form of accountability that is distinct from mere oversight by elected officials or judicial review. Participants in bureaucratic policymaking continuously engage in justifying their positions to multiple stakeholders, thereby creating a dynamic environment of reason-giving that transcends conventional supervisory roles.

The Role of the Bureaucratic Class

The bureaucratic class is often depicted in a negative light, portrayed as an “unelected” and potentially dangerous entity that threatens democratic governance. Critics argue that the power wielded by bureaucrats can undermine the authority of elected officials, as exemplified in high-profile legal cases where judicial decisions questioned the legitimacy of agency regulations. Nevertheless, bureaucrats also play an essential role in policy implementation, offering expertise and specialized knowledge that inform decision-making processes.

Power tends to corrupt, and and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lord Acton

Professional and Managerial Workers

The bureaucratic class overlaps with the professional and managerial class (PMC), which has emerged as a distinct social entity within capitalist societies. Members of the PMC, including bureaucrats, often possess specialized knowledge and ethical commitments to public service, granting them a degree of autonomy in their professional conduct. Despite not being part of the ruling class, the PMC is influential in shaping policy and public administration, reflecting a complex relationship with both the working class and the elite.

Relevance in Contemporary Politics

The concept of the managerial state, as discussed in the context of James Burnham’s “Managerial Revolution,” remains profoundly relevant in contemporary political discourse. It highlights the increasing bureaucratization of daily life and the dominance of unelected officials in governance structures, challenging traditional notions of democracy as a system solely governed by electoral outcomes. This evolution has led to