This isn't actually Burnham’s original thesis. Burnham’s _Managerial Revolution_ was actually a reiterated version of an argument that was made a few years earlier by an Italian shoemaker called Bruno Rizzi in his book entitled, _"The Bureaucratization of the World."_ The following is an excerpt from, _How the Deal Went Down,_ a 2013 article published by The New Yorker: _In September, 1939, just as the Second World War was beginning, a left-wing Italian shoe salesman named Bruno Rizzi published a book, in Paris, called “The Bureaucratization of the World.” Rizzi brought the book out at his own expense; he couldn’t find a publisher. In early 1940, he was charged by French authorities with racial defamation-there was an anti-Semitic chapter in his book-and he was fined and received a suspended sentence. Remaining copies of the book were confiscated and pulped._ _Rizzi hadn’t used his full name on the cover-he identified himself as Bruno R.-and he more or less disappeared from view in the chaos of the war. (He resurfaced afterward.) “The Bureaucratization of the World” might have slipped into oblivion but for one thing: Rizzi had managed to get a copy to Leon Trotsky, who was living in exile in the village of Coyoacán, outside Mexico City. Trotsky read the book and was sufficiently exercised to write an article criticizing it. The article was published, in November, 1939, in a journal called The New International, an organ of the Socialist Workers Party, a Trotskyist organization based in New York City._ _Rizzi had argued that under Stalin’s leadership the Soviet Union had a political system that was neither capitalist nor socialist. It was something that Marx had not foreseen: a system that Rizzi called “bureaucratic collectivism.” The Soviet Union was being ruled by a new class of Party functionaries and industrial technicians, who exploited the workers the same way the capitalists had. It had become just like the fascist states of Germany, Italy, and Japan._ _What was more, Rizzi said, the United States was headed in the same direction. With Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, a ruling class of government administrators and corporate managers was taking over. Bureaucracy was emerging as the form of government everywhere. “A monstrous new world . . . is being born,” Rizzi wrote, “and born so evil that it is resurrecting slavery after two thousand years of history.” He predicted that the planet would eventually be dominated by seven or eight of these bureaucratic autocracies._ _In 1941, Burnham published a book called “The Managerial Revolution.” He hadn’t read “The Bureaucratization of the World,” which, in 1941, was about as out of print as a book can be. But he had read Trotsky’s summary of it-he was Trotsky’s editor, after all-and his argument was basically Bruno R.’s argument. The economies of the major powers, Burnham said, had fallen into the hands of a new élite: the managers, executives, financiers, and stockholders who owned and ran corporations, and the government administrators who regulated them._ _Burnham had earlier described the New Deal as “preparing the United States for the comparatively smooth transition to Fascism,” and he folded the United States easily into his picture of a world headed toward top-down managerialism. He thought that the nations farthest along the road were Russia, Germany, and Italy, which suggested that totalitarian dictatorship was managerialism’s natural political form. Rizzi had imagined a world dominated by seven or eight autocratic states; Burnham foresaw three, centered in the areas where advanced industry was already concentrated-the United States, Japan, and Germany. Wars of the future, he said, would be struggles among these superstates for world control._ _Burnham, too, had trouble finding a publisher, but, when the book finally appeared, it was a huge success. Time listed “The Managerial Revolution” as one of the top six books of 1941; a critic at the Times named it one of the year’s notable books. A hundred thousand copies were sold in the United States and Britain, and it did even better in paperback. One of its keenest readers was George Orwell, and “The Managerial Revolution” was a major influence on “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” with its three totalitarian monster states._
Interesting idea that the Nazis and Communists didn't really lose, and that their managerial systems have really succeeded in adoption in the West to some extent. I had never thought of that..
A totalitarian state has no issue with bleeding their economy for most of its value, and so will. So to defeat that totalitarian state, if equally sized ect, you have to follow along. Their actions become your actions
@rkb100100 Yeah and that is not by accident. Democracy favours such rule, not against such rule as the conventional American wisdom goes. The wrong turn conservatism took during the wars(including the cold war) really muddied the water in terms of seeing the government as it is for the people and even that is not a mistake.
Naziism and Communism are two heads of the same eagle looking in either direction. They are front movements for the cabal that runs everything. WW1 and WW2 were psyops like COVID. They play both sides off of each other towards a single goal: control.
I had never heard of this book before, but as soon as I saw the podcast title, I realised this was an important analysis. I could have listened to your discussion for hours. I am going straight to the links below. Thx guys.
Read this last year. Phenomenal book, the 'managerial' framework provides very good context for analyzing post WW history. Phenomenal Burnham saw what he did in the 1930s and was able to provide such powerful predictions - even if not 100% correct. "Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom" also good read.
Burnham believed that some residual democratic processes would be allowed to continue as a means by which the managerialists would actually IMPROVE their dictatorship. That is to say, that in order to be more-efficient, as well as to discover new means of control, knowing -- roughly -- what the people were (approximately) thinking at any given time was a useful tool. His thesis was that Managerialism actually works better in a "democratic" society, saying in The Machiavellians" that Germany, for example, might have changed the outcome of the war had they allowed freedom of speech and therefore prevented some of Hitler's more-glaring strategic errors.
@@stevecooper7883 Socialism is a 'pipe dream' with zero ability to succeed by default, on account of ignorance toward economic first principles, and then is believed to be a myth only by socialists with ever decreasing intellect, whose incarnation of their regurgitated ideology drifts further and further into la la land. 'Overhauling' a system of governance can be achieved, where the best example is the Hoskyns Government Wiring Map and accompanying Stepping Stones programme of the late 1970's, with added comprehension of actual lessons learned and micro/macro economic analysis, rather than being distracted and focused purely on the latest 'thing', i.e. creation of work packages that identify the totality of all actual problems.
The Greek word ANTI means ; Opposite of, but also : IN PLACE OF. The main Title for the Popes is : " Vicar of Christ " which means : Replacement of Jesus Christ on Earth. Nearly All the Early Protestant leaders Believed that Papal Rome was the Prophesied " Little Horn Power " ( Little Kingdom ) that ruled over the Kings of the Earth ; the Man of Sin. To Counter this widespread view, FUTURISM was devised by 16th Century Jesuit Francisco Ribera. This New Interpretation of End Time Prophecy got People Looking for a Future Antichrist, this new view Cleverly Absolved the Papal Dynasty from being the Antichrist. Now we see the Papacy has recovered from its ( seemingly ) " Deadly Head Wound ", and is Leading the Agenda of the N.W.O ( the coming SOCIALIST Worldwide Antichrist System ). Who Else on Earth has Already killed Millions of Christians in her Centuries Long Inquisitions ? Which MAN Claims to be the " Head of the Church " ? ( which in Reality is Jesus Christ of course ! ) and is Uniting the Worlds Religions ? Please Study Historicism versus Futurism ( for Example on the Channel : Prophecy Reality by Nicklas Arthur ), God bless.
I'm going to look for the book, but I'd like to hear more about managerialism with a more rationalist take if you could draw a chart of countries for comparison, since the govt taxes 50% of every dollar you make, and then snakes even more at every purchase, you could show a comparison to George Washingtons govt, England in 1770, and USA today, and Russia in the 70's. Sure, your culture will be different, your rights will be different, but I'm curious if you had a job in Russia, do they actually take more of your money than the USA today?
@@martinledermann1862 marxists tend not to like the managerial revolution, and they paint the "managerial" class as a mere parasitic class on the capitalists incapable of independent existence.
@@martinledermann1862i think Vox or Vice wrote an article which critiqued the manegerial revolution. But it's basically "Burnhams predictions were wrong, therefore everything else invalid".
It’s funny. I’m part of the managerial class, living in a Washington DC area county and making a six figure income for the last couple of decades. I still voted for Trump because I don’t want to see the USA turned into a third world shit hole where nobody has any civil rights. I doubt that the factory managers in the Soviet Union were happy. Why did I choose my path in life? Private industry offered me low wages and no benefits. The military and government simply outbid them. I could use my biology degree to work in a quality control lab at a make-up factory for $10/hr and no benefits ( my last honest job) or I could make >$100,000 year first as a military officer and later as a Pentagon bureaucrat with the best benefit package anywhere while traveling the world on the tax payer’s dime. I’m not sure what the moral of the story is.
This isn't actually Burnham’s original thesis. Burnham’s _Managerial Revolution_ was actually a reiterated version of an argument that was made a few years earlier by an Italian shoemaker called Bruno Rizzi in his book entitled, _"The Bureaucratization of the World."_
The following is an excerpt from, _How the Deal Went Down,_ a 2013 article published by The New Yorker:
_In September, 1939, just as the Second World War was beginning, a left-wing Italian shoe salesman named Bruno Rizzi published a book, in Paris, called “The Bureaucratization of the World.” Rizzi brought the book out at his own expense; he couldn’t find a publisher. In early 1940, he was charged by French authorities with racial defamation-there was an anti-Semitic chapter in his book-and he was fined and received a suspended sentence. Remaining copies of the book were confiscated and pulped._
_Rizzi hadn’t used his full name on the cover-he identified himself as Bruno R.-and he more or less disappeared from view in the chaos of the war. (He resurfaced afterward.) “The Bureaucratization of the World” might have slipped into oblivion but for one thing: Rizzi had managed to get a copy to Leon Trotsky, who was living in exile in the village of Coyoacán, outside Mexico City. Trotsky read the book and was sufficiently exercised to write an article criticizing it. The article was published, in November, 1939, in a journal called The New International, an organ of the Socialist Workers Party, a Trotskyist organization based in New York City._
_Rizzi had argued that under Stalin’s leadership the Soviet Union had a political system that was neither capitalist nor socialist. It was something that Marx had not foreseen: a system that Rizzi called “bureaucratic collectivism.” The Soviet Union was being ruled by a new class of Party functionaries and industrial technicians, who exploited the workers the same way the capitalists had. It had become just like the fascist states of Germany, Italy, and Japan._
_What was more, Rizzi said, the United States was headed in the same direction. With Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, a ruling class of government administrators and corporate managers was taking over. Bureaucracy was emerging as the form of government everywhere. “A monstrous new world . . . is being born,” Rizzi wrote, “and born so evil that it is resurrecting slavery after two thousand years of history.” He predicted that the planet would eventually be dominated by seven or eight of these bureaucratic autocracies._
_In 1941, Burnham published a book called “The Managerial Revolution.” He hadn’t read “The Bureaucratization of the World,” which, in 1941, was about as out of print as a book can be. But he had read Trotsky’s summary of it-he was Trotsky’s editor, after all-and his argument was basically Bruno R.’s argument. The economies of the major powers, Burnham said, had fallen into the hands of a new élite: the managers, executives, financiers, and stockholders who owned and ran corporations, and the government administrators who regulated them._
_Burnham had earlier described the New Deal as “preparing the United States for the comparatively smooth transition to Fascism,” and he folded the United States easily into his picture of a world headed toward top-down managerialism. He thought that the nations farthest along the road were Russia, Germany, and Italy, which suggested that totalitarian dictatorship was managerialism’s natural political form. Rizzi had imagined a world dominated by seven or eight autocratic states; Burnham foresaw three, centered in the areas where advanced industry was already concentrated-the United States, Japan, and Germany. Wars of the future, he said, would be struggles among these superstates for world control._
_Burnham, too, had trouble finding a publisher, but, when the book finally appeared, it was a huge success. Time listed “The Managerial Revolution” as one of the top six books of 1941; a critic at the Times named it one of the year’s notable books. A hundred thousand copies were sold in the United States and Britain, and it did even better in paperback. One of its keenest readers was George Orwell, and “The Managerial Revolution” was a major influence on “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” with its three totalitarian monster states._
Vev. Tip top. Great stuff.
Interesting idea that the Nazis and Communists didn't really lose, and that their managerial systems have really succeeded in adoption in the West to some extent. I had never thought of that..
A totalitarian state has no issue with bleeding their economy for most of its value, and so will. So to defeat that totalitarian state, if equally sized ect, you have to follow along. Their actions become your actions
@rkb100100 Yeah and that is not by accident. Democracy favours such rule, not against such rule as the conventional American wisdom goes. The wrong turn conservatism took during the wars(including the cold war) really muddied the water in terms of seeing the government as it is for the people and even that is not a mistake.
Naziism and Communism are two heads of the same eagle looking in either direction. They are front movements for the cabal that runs everything. WW1 and WW2 were psyops like COVID. They play both sides off of each other towards a single goal: control.
god this comment alone gives me reason not to watch this
More that American progressivism, national socialism and Marxist socialism were all managerial systems.
I had never heard of this book before, but as soon as I saw the podcast title, I realised this was an important analysis. I could have listened to your discussion for hours. I am going straight to the links below. Thx guys.
Great timing, I've been reading the biography of James Burnham, "The Struggle for the World"
Read this last year. Phenomenal book, the 'managerial' framework provides very good context for analyzing post WW history. Phenomenal Burnham saw what he did in the 1930s and was able to provide such powerful predictions - even if not 100% correct. "Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom" also good read.
Bureaucracy + cronyism ==> managerial regime + competency crisis
Burnham believed that some residual democratic processes would be allowed to continue as a means by which the managerialists would actually IMPROVE their dictatorship. That is to say, that in order to be more-efficient, as well as to discover new means of control, knowing -- roughly -- what the people were (approximately) thinking at any given time was a useful tool.
His thesis was that Managerialism actually works better in a "democratic" society, saying in The Machiavellians" that Germany, for example, might have changed the outcome of the war had they allowed freedom of speech and therefore prevented some of Hitler's more-glaring strategic errors.
This thesis also reinforces the argument that the “Progressive Era” wasn’t really all that progressive...
CNN has people determining what news you need to hear, so yes!
Oh, it was progressive alright. It was just the wrong kind of progressivism.
Always cautious of the scenario of 'that wasn't real socialism'.
As long as it's assumed that "socialism" is a myth and pipe dream, this explains the real world implications of overhauling systems.
@@stevecooper7883 Socialism is a 'pipe dream' with zero ability to succeed by default, on account of ignorance toward economic first principles, and then is believed to be a myth only by socialists with ever decreasing intellect, whose incarnation of their regurgitated ideology drifts further and further into la la land. 'Overhauling' a system of governance can be achieved, where the best example is the Hoskyns Government Wiring Map and accompanying Stepping Stones programme of the late 1970's, with added comprehension of actual lessons learned and micro/macro economic analysis, rather than being distracted and focused purely on the latest 'thing', i.e. creation of work packages that identify the totality of all actual problems.
All are just flavors of Fabianism or feudalism.
The Greek word ANTI means ; Opposite of, but also : IN PLACE OF. The main Title for the Popes is : " Vicar of Christ " which means : Replacement of Jesus Christ on Earth. Nearly All the Early Protestant leaders Believed that Papal Rome was the Prophesied " Little Horn Power " ( Little Kingdom ) that ruled over the Kings of the Earth ; the Man of Sin. To Counter this widespread view, FUTURISM was devised by 16th Century Jesuit Francisco Ribera. This New Interpretation of End Time Prophecy got People Looking for a Future Antichrist, this new view Cleverly Absolved the Papal Dynasty from being the Antichrist. Now we see the Papacy has recovered from its ( seemingly ) " Deadly Head Wound ", and is Leading the Agenda of the N.W.O ( the coming SOCIALIST Worldwide Antichrist System ). Who Else on Earth has Already killed Millions of Christians in her Centuries Long Inquisitions ? Which MAN Claims to be the " Head of the Church " ? ( which in Reality is Jesus Christ of course ! ) and is Uniting the Worlds Religions ? Please Study Historicism versus Futurism ( for Example on the Channel : Prophecy Reality by Nicklas Arthur ), God bless.
I'm going to look for the book, but I'd like to hear more about managerialism with a more rationalist take if you could draw a chart of countries for comparison, since the govt taxes 50% of every dollar you make, and then snakes even more at every purchase, you could show a comparison to George Washingtons govt, England in 1770, and USA today, and Russia in the 70's. Sure, your culture will be different, your rights will be different, but I'm curious if you had a job in Russia, do they actually take more of your money than the USA today?
here from kaiserredux
ja wunderbar
“Married a wealthy girl” we all know what that means!
What does it mean?
@@imzoltan An old beatiful women
Has any major critique of this idea come from right or left wing circles? It seems plausible.
Have you encountered any in the meantime? I've only just been introduced to this topic for the first time and I was also wondering about that...
@@martinledermann1862 marxists tend not to like the managerial revolution, and they paint the "managerial" class as a mere parasitic class on the capitalists incapable of independent existence.
@@martinledermann1862i think Vox or Vice wrote an article which critiqued the manegerial revolution. But it's basically "Burnhams predictions were wrong, therefore everything else invalid".
It’s funny. I’m part of the managerial class, living in a Washington DC area county and making a six figure income for the last couple of decades. I still voted for Trump because I don’t want to see the USA turned into a third world shit hole where nobody has any civil rights. I doubt that the factory managers in the Soviet Union were happy. Why did I choose my path in life? Private industry offered me low wages and no benefits. The military and government simply outbid them. I could use my biology degree to work in a quality control lab at a make-up factory for $10/hr and no benefits ( my last honest job) or I could make >$100,000 year first as a military officer and later as a Pentagon bureaucrat with the best benefit package anywhere while traveling the world on the tax payer’s dime. I’m not sure what the moral of the story is.
Voting for Tump is counterproductive. Just influence the one party state from the inside, like Volcker did.
I often say that conservatives claim they get economics. However, they can't handle being told "Change the incentive change the outcome."