The Managerial Myth: James Burnham and the Cynical Critique of Democracy

In the mid-20th century, James Burnham emerged as one of the most polarizing figures in political theory. His core thesis—that a new “managerial elite” was inevitable—provoked intense accusations of cynicism and elitism from his contemporaries.

The Rise of the Managerial Class

In his 1941 work, The Managerial Revolution, Burnham argued that capitalism was not being replaced by socialism, but by managerialism. He claimed that true power had shifted to a class of experts—technocrats, bureaucrats, and administrators—who controlled the means of production through their specialized skills rather than traditional ownership.

Why He Was Accused of Cynicism

Burnham’s “realist” approach led him to strip away the moral and democratic ideals usually associated with governance. Critics labeled him cynical for several reasons:

• Politics as Pure Power: He reduced all political activity to a raw struggle for power between competing elites.
• Democracy as a Myth: He viewed democratic slogans—like liberty and equality—as mere “ideological veils” or “humbug” used by the new elite to mask their control.
• Historical Determinism: He suggested that the transition to an oligarchic, managerial society was an irresistible law of history, leaving no room for the agency of the “common man”.

The Charge of Elitism

Burnham was often viewed as an elitist because his theories focused almost exclusively on the ruling class. He believed that society is naturally hierarchical and that an “aristocracy of talent” would always occupy the top, while the masses remained largely passive or “semi-slaves” in the new jameskburnhamdds super-states. His background as a privileged, Oxford-educated philosopher further fueled perceptions that he looked down upon the democratic capacity of the public.

George Orwell’s Famous Rebuttal

The most influential critic of Burnham’s “cynicism” was George Orwell. In his essay, “Second Thoughts on James Burnham”, Orwell accused him of:

• Power Worship: Orwell argued that Burnham was “fascinated by the spectacle of power” and had a tendency to side with whoever appeared strongest at the moment—leading him to incorrectly predict a Nazi victory during WWII.
• Ignoring Moral Resilience: Orwell believed Burnham’s cynicism blinded him to the fact that common people could, and would, resist tyrannical efficiency.

Despite these criticisms, Burnham’s work remains a cornerstone for those analyzing the modern administrative state and the influence of unelected technocrats in 21st-century governance.

Would you like to explore how Burnham’s “managerial super-states” directly inspired the world-building of George Orwell’s 1984?