Monday 8 July 2024
This drive will be successful
About five years ago I read The Managerial Revolution, a book published in 1941 by James Burnham.
Now the UK general election is over and although many people will have read the book already, a few paragraphs are still worth quoting. The blog post title is taken from the second paragraph.
This transition is from the type of society which we have called capitalist or bourgeois to a type of society which we shall call managerial. This transition period may be expected to be short compared with the transition from feudal to capitalist society. It may be dated, somewhat arbitrarily, from the first world war, and may be expected to close, with the consolidation of the new type of society, by approximately fifty years from then, perhaps sooner.
What is occurring in this transition is a drive for social dominance, for power and privilege, for the position of ruling class, by the social group or class of the managers (as I shall call them, reserving for the moment an explanation of whom this class includes). This drive will be successful.
The control of the state by the managers will be suitably guaranteed by appropriate political institutions, analogous to the guarantee of bourgeois dominance under capitalism by the bourgeois political institutions.
Outright acquisition by government of rapidly increasing areas of the economy is, however, only one phase of the process. Still more striking, and far more extensive in range, is the widening control by government of more and more parts and features of the economy. Everyone is familiar with this control, administered by the long list of commissions and bureaus and alphabetical agencies.
The actual, day-by-day direction of the processes owned and operated by the government or controlled, without full ownership, by the government is in the hands of individuals strictly comparable to those whom we have called “managers” in the case of private industry: the men of the innumerable bureaus and commissions and agencies, not often the publicly known figures, who may be decorative politicians, but the ones who actually do the directing work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
One theme emerging from this idea (which went back further than Burnham to Max Weber) was the view that this managerial supremacy would be calmer, more orderly, and rational than the rule by capitalists which preceded it. There was a big debate in Marxist circles about how the bourgeoisie - which were essentially in competition and marked by in-fighting to gain markets - managed to control the state and bring about a common purpose. (The Miliband kids' dad was an important contributor to this, and sparred for several years with a bloke called Nicos Poulantzas as to how the trick was accomplished.)
However, the rise of managerialism has not led to more order and a common purpose. It appears that nobody can get things done. Top managers - cabinet ministers - are unable to get low-ranking civil servants to return to the office. The Border Force refuse to deport illegal immigrants because they might get sued, even though this was government policy. Unlike a well-run managerial system, nobody is really sure where power lies.
My guess is that Starmer sees himself as sorting this by means of beefing up the judiciary. The lawyer's solution is to make dissent illegal, and to use the supreme court to bring Parliament to heel. Governing by means of the judiciary is just managerialism on steroids, with the big decisions made in public in order to humiliate the opposition.
Sam - yes, Starmer's approach does seem to rely on beefing up the judiciary. As you say, it's managerialism on steroids. It's something which could be framed in a number of ways, such as the orderly pursuit of goals where the primary goal is the orderly pursuit itself. An emphasis on behaviour rather than politics - avoiding surprises.
Even at this stage, Starmer appears to be the kind of person who would either make this mistake and eventually fail, or carry on knowing quite well that he has no goal apart from the imposition of an orderly common purpose. Everything else is supporting narrative.
We seem to make too much of a distinction between lawyers and bureaucrats.
And yet the managers of the innumerable bureaus, commissions and agencies could easily be replaced by AI systems, so the Managerial Rebellion may be short lived.
I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not.
A grand find, Oh blogger.
P.S. "The Miliband kids' dad" was the chap who wangled young David an undeserved place at Oxford: what a manager, eh?
And lo, Surkier has solved the energy problem.
What is needed is a Nationalised Energy company, run by proper politicised managers.
Of course it will be "funded" by the existing energy companies. Funding is magic money and by the use of this word the simple electorate will not realise that it means "dosh" and that they will be providing it.
Think there could not be a bigger clusterfuck than the NHS?
Hold my beer says Surkier.
DJ - "I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not."
Five years of Starmer and his cabinet may firm up our views though.
dearieme - ah yes, the Marxist father. That spot of early management seems to have launched young David towards a lucrative career.
Doonhamer - yes, Great British Energy designed to cost us money then more money then even more.
Post a Comment